r8533292 · HackerTrans

as of right now it's a desktop calculator, functions, conditionals and loops are missing, you can see its scope here https://shakti.com/k/k.d

r8533292

2 anni fadiscuss

there's a reason why people on forums and chans consistently recommend land of lisp over other books, it's deliberately imperfect in a way which appeals to a certain kind of young hacker's mind. it doesn't assume basic lisp knowledge, it assumes you're going to type the program in without understanding and then figure it out from exploration. it also assumes that you won't understand the whole program immediately or even after reading the whole book. it's a different didactic approach, and is modeled after author's personal experience of learning how to program by typing BASIC programs from magazines. as such the programs are deliberately "misarchitected", they are somewhere between scripts and hacks that present a variety of ways in which common lisp the standard allows you to solve this or that problem. they are also designed to be "tasty", compact and quirky, as opposed to well structured, plodding and dogmatic. they are lifted directly from a wizard's laboratory and they invite play.

by comparison touretzky is a college level slog, solid, dependable coursework, that takes you over all the proper subject matter in a way that's certain to be approved by any computer science department committee, but that fails to create any sort of motivation to engage.

r8533292

2 anni fadiscuss

i'll add to general discussion about syntaxes and infix notation, i'm not sure where to attach this point to existing threads. genera had infix mode, that was enabled on a reader macro. you could write something like

    (defun bresenham (a x0 y0 x1 y1 &aux dx dy d y)
      #◇dx:x1-x0,
        dy:y1-y0,
        d:2*dy-dx,
        y=y0◇
      (loop for x from x0 to x1
            do #◇a[x,y]:1,
                 if d>0 then
                   (y:y+1,
                    d:d-2*dx),
                 d:d+2*dy◇))

you can make the code above fully operational in common lisp using dispatch macro on a unicode character, so i've been experimenting with such infix mode in my private code. i'll leave the judgement over whether or not this increases readibility.

r8533292

2 anni fadiscuss

it was finnish deadpan humor

r8533292

2 anni fadiscuss

that's what her lawyer says, the appeals court disagrees with what her lawyer says, they upheld the original decision and explain in detail why in the opinion https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-spone. "The above cited evidence directly contradicts Spone's suggestion that she was a concerned parent who had a legitimate purpose in sending the series of anonymous text messages."

r8533292

2 anni fadiscuss

you are implying that miscarriage of justice took place, without explicitly saying so. would you still make the same insinuations in other controversial cases like minnesota v. chauvin, or in cases where the guilt is so well established the jury is choosing between one lifetime and seven, like in state v. keith gibson (a recent serial killer in philadelphia, not national news)

but also like consider, there's appeals court's opinion (i missed that there was an appeal on my first reading) https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-spone, i read it, if the details presented in the opinion are not substantially different from the facts presented during original trial, i would've also convicted spone of harrasment. so literally if i were on jury duty in this case, i would've had to disagree with you.

r8533292

2 anni fadiscuss

you're correct, i missed that part, because i would've looked up the appeal decision otherwise, https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-spone and it provides all the necessary details that support my guess in the op: spone was an unhinged busybody anonymously harrassing parents, the greater abhorent witch hunt took this minor community business into a national spotlight, but now the overal complexity of the situation allows spone to pretend to be a victim. if you feel particularly involved, i recommend reading the decision in full, it addresses all the concerns i have so far encountered in comments, question of free speech, potential lack of evidence, etc.

r8533292

2 anni fadiscuss

> Nothing she did deserves what happened. Nothing.

she was convicted of harrasment of minors by a jury in a court of law. presumably there was supporting evidence of the harrasment charges, and that's not something that the article disputes.

r8533292

2 anni fadiscuss

> The anymore texts weren’t threatening in my opinion

that's not what the jury decided, nor what the lady was convicted over, this also not something that the lady is attempting to dispute in court. she can't even keep her story straight between herself and her lawyer about which texts she actually did sent.

r8533292

2 anni fadiscuss

the substance of the actual allegations that were brought against spone is that she was sending harassing messages to parents, children and to coach. she admitted to sending some of those messages, but denied sending other messages. she was doing that anonymously either from a burner number or from random accounts. she gets convicted of that specifically. but then when interviewed by the op's journalist she denies sending any kind of messages at all.

  Spone may not manipulate videos and images, but she definitely collects them. Still, she says she never sent them. “The charges were that she directly sent messages to the minors,” Birch adds. “That never happened. That’s the point.”

   But did she send messages to the gym and the parents? There is a long pause. “No,” Spone eventually says.

   I’m surprised to hear her say this, given Birch told the Washington Post Spone messaged the parents out of concern for what their daughters had put online. When I point this out, there’s another long pause. “If I said that, I said it,” Birch says, with a shrug. “It is what it is.”

   Even if Spone is guilty of sending the five messages, she is innocent of the claims that made her notorious. Sending anonymous and unwelcome text messages is not the same as digitally manipulating images of minors.

in my opinion this is the core of the article. the charges of digitally manipulating images were never brought against her, but she got victimized as a result of police incompetence and a public witch hunt. the article thought tries to paint her entirely as a victim. birch is her lawyer, spone gets convincted on harassment of minors charges, birch claims that such harassment never took place, meanwhile birch and stone can't agree on which messages were sent even when talking to a sympathetic journalist. shouldn't the question of harassment be handled by appeal? instead of the appeal though, they are bring various pain and suffering suits against the county, which is entirely reasonable, but not quite what the article tries to imply.

in my read of the article a nasty busybody harasses people, happens in this kind of communities all the time, but this time the whole thing gets caught in a national witch hunt. the witch hunt is awful, but it lets the nasty busybody play victim across the board.