The author is very charitable in their description of the Elm Core teams actions in these interactions, but you read it and they come off entirely unaccountable and dismissive. If they want to make a purely functional language locked down, you really should be upfront that they don't have time to make sure basic parts of the web ecosystem are arbitrarily locked off like i18n until they decide users of their langauge are permitted to use it after ruling out any suggestion it doesn't undermine the purity they were going for.
Gonna be honest, really got the impression the maintainer here couldn't be stuffed looking to it, and wasn't personally impacted and largely didn't give a shit. Proceeds to run off some bullshit to dismiss the issue entirely about it being too risky (he had better things to do, and anyone he can delegate this too does too), the poster offers to do the work write a report, etc, etc. Then he's ghosted and for some reason the thread is shut after 10 days lol??? I guess giving him the dignity of a reply is out of the core teams hands because of how they arbitrarily configured their discourse.
Don't blame that dude for leaving Elm, glad I never made the mistake of wasting my time being dependent on its infantilizating runtime.
Look if you want to avoid being too coupled to the runtime your language exists in, sounds like a cool experiment, but maybe don't drag everyone along with you until you figure out the basic issues.
All that is 6 years ago hopefully they're more self aware.
Is anyone else where familiar with MathML[1] and tried using it place of LaTeX?
Obviously not a replacement for all usecase of the above package (like rendering existing documents), but I use mostly for rendering math here and there in my own notes, I prefer it as I can render math without any dependencies, some examples here [2].
That said I'm my own user and mostly view it the same browser, but I've heard there are inconsistencies in rendering in different browsers.
Yeah these are definitely some of the more well known examples, these early communist countries tended to have a lot of state capacity so if there were such things like local planning controls and they got in the way of state priorities they were simply rewritten or appealed.
The USA, and Australia actually use to have far greater state capacity.
Besides political will, the structure of institutions and distribution of authority in both Australia and USA act against the federal governments of either country enacting this.
It seems if you want you're allowed to set it up on your own property, which is surprising reasonable for Sydney standards. Just no more than 6 months after which you need to make a permit, possibly make a development application or something as it may be viewed as a permanent increase in floor space which tends to be tied infrastructure levies and maybe rates (think property tax). You can't set it up in the middle of the outback without some kind of planning proposal to rezone it to permit it.
At least with NSW (the state Sydney is in) the criteria are likely consistent across the state)
In Sydney Trailers likely aren't subject to Development control plans (DCPs) but other kinds of prefab/manufactured homes definitely are. Here's an example of a DCP, here is an example one from Randwick (one of 20-30 councils sydney is compromised of): https://hdp-au-prod-app-rcc-yoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2....
It regulates room size relative to floor ceiling distance, solar and privacy impacts on adjacent sites, minimum privacy and solar inside the dwelling (such as the amount of sunlight during the least sunny hour of the least sunniest day of the year), setbacks, etc, etc. If its next a heritage item it can't mimic it, it also can't take attention from it, has to confirm with some abstraction notion of sympathy to the heritage item
> For many sectors of construction, difficulty in achieving economies of scale could be attributed to the fact that only a small number of buildings of a particular type get built in the US each year. There were, for instance, only 10 skyscrapers taller than 200 meters built in the US in 2025
But so on production productivity generally, relating to that
In New Zealand Auckland they did a board upzoning in 2016, it was the largest metro governed under the same planning regieme, they allowed many dwelling types by right, and increased planning controls. Economist Matt Maltman did some research on construction productivity during this period
His research (which showed productivity did increased) this is consistent with the idea the point above being productivity gains comes from the ability to repeat the same process over and over which was possible Auckland after they uniformly upzoned the city, after which most lots had higher zoned capacity than its existing built capacity (almost certainly with homogeneous allowed heights and floor space), allowing for this process of repeatedly building the same type of unit over and over. Matt has written more about construction productivity here in
Anyways if you'll note that the number of firms providing homes also increased, meaning the process of repeating construction over and over isn't isolated to a few firms. While the size of the industry almost certainly grew, the same number of builders likely were working more and more of similar buildings, and they are repeating similar processes over and over consuming similar inputs over and over.
- Those different housing projects due to some level of homogeneity will encounter similar hurdles where which creates a sufficiently large incentive and market for someone to sell solutions tailored to those problems which likely improves productivity (compliance is likely a big one).
- There was likely a greater rate of interaction of different people in these industries interacting with one another allowing for a greater distribution of construction related ideas, some more efficient than others. Think when you have a new coworker who introduces a new tool and suddenly every starts using, this process is able to happen more frequently.
- Likewise some of those inputs likely had an opportunity to efficient. Inputs from industries with fewer players would have been greater incentivised to sell as many units as possible and find ways to reduce their costs. If they performed price 2nd/3rd discrimination previously due to that market being insufficiently large relative others, they have an incentive to act otherwise.
Even with that still leaves planning controls, which dictates a lot constraint’s on development. In some jurisdictions you can effectively have planning controls that ban some floor plans. Admittedly I’ve just heard of federal HUD maybe this is some unprecedented case where it overalls local government planning and state laws, though I think that’s unlikely, I do know there’s plenty of fragmentation of planning regimes.
Point being, you may be able to construct something and it to tick the construction code boxes, whether the building you can make with it is permitted under planning is a different matter. Which can implicit ban those buildings
For example the zoning code could limits the type of dwelling to something and that thing has a pedantic definition which unique to that jurisdiction, or there’s a combination of max floor space controls and height controls that makes off the shelf prefab components ineffective at making the most of the allowed building envelope. Or a jurisdictions could require design contests for buildings at certain sites or a certain area so it may not be a given you can even use available prefab.
A question about prefab construction came up at a talk this year in Sydney with Lucy Turnbull (Former Sydney Mayor) and Alain Bertaud (planner and author order without design), Lucy mentioned someone tried this in Sydney and went under and they never heard from them again despite promising the world. Alain mentioned that tastes (think in terms of from finishes to floor plans) change often enough where prefabricating an entire house doesn't really make sense. Not to mention construction codes can change as well (I know in the US it can vary on a county level), they mentioned they saw more success with prefabricating components like windows or fireplaces or whatever.
Something like a factory requires an intensive upfront captial investment, if tastes change often enough the process would need to be amendable to adapt to changing tastes.
Combined with that, I think the fact there is no uniform standards for acceptable floor plans, compliant layouts and construction codes across the different jurisdictions really makes it hard for there to be economies of scale.
> note I don’t think construction codes are strictly a problem within the US, there’s apparently a manufactured housing code. However planning controls are a seperate thing and possibly still an issue.
An example from Sydney (which likely relates to other jurisdictions) Outsides construction code, in Sydney there is a quasi instrument called the apartment design guide which issues requirements on floor plans, floorspace, how far a bedroom wall can be from a window in a bedroom, ceiling heights a lot of things that act as constraints on the possible layouts of a home, and I have no doubt some form of this exists in other jurisdictions as well. I imagine when there is so much variation in different legislative constraints in different jurisdictions there isn't really economies of scales as there are actually several different non homogenous market segments with incompatible set of constraints, and where there's overlap it may not be a high demand end product.
I don't think this as much of a problem but I imagine there are cases where some unionised construction industries may refuse to use work on site using prefab components. I haven't really heard of such cases so I'm not convinced this is a real blocker.
> I think I was simply not very good at expressing what I was trying to convey, sorry
No its, and I appreciate you taking the time to read my reply and consider my perspective here.
> The second point I interpret as "colourful returns are unavoidable but good", with which I disagree - even if that interpretation is too strong and is more "... are unavoidable"
Thats fair, but yeah I wouldn't go so far to say its good or imply we should celebrate it in anyways, more so it as a unavoidable constraint that warrants engaging with.
For sure HKT would generalise many stray ends, and there are definately more complicated usecases where you can write much nicer types with HKT, although my experience has been theres been more pain in writing them without HKT than using them without HKT so the pain is a fixed cost of building the library and not an on going problem of using it. Although I am sure there are cases where it's also the case that usage of the library is more painful without HKT.
IDK, I haven't written a ton of Haskell in a while maybe I've forgotten some of its magic and internalised some of the suboptimal aspects of the absense of working without HKT.
But I do from time to time find problems that would be nicer to solve with HKT, I think generally quite a few of them are DSLs or some form of meta programming. I guess in typescript conditional types you can get away with a lot cooked things.
> Transposing a vector of things to a thing of vectors is an example of where colourful output forces colourful input. If you cannot abstract over abstractions, you must write and re-write the sequence function for each abstraction
I've unfortunately also had similar issues from the lack of HKTs with some linear algebra APIs so I don't find this too surprising.
I think you're confused, I was talking to two different points, while I'm sure I could have communicated with more precision, either missed it, it was unclear or you don't understand, either way I don't really get the gotcha tone when you could ask for a clarification:
Anyways, the two points:
- The first point was, "not having a common way to generalise over both sync, async or blue, green, brown functions, seems avoidable and bad". This is when the type system struggling to common up with a common classification for function invocation independently of colour.
- The second point was that, was "so what if there are different return / wrapping / container / monad types", which focuses on a more common interpretation of this article but a different one.
In Haskell a type in a result, State, Config, Parsec, Maybe is in it for a reason, and thankfully we can generalise over that. Higher kind types (abstracting over abstractions) is a whole other basket, as an ex haskeller I would love to see them more mainstream but admittedly I don't think language authors are convinced and there isn't much we can do about it, so we should learn to make do with what we have outside of haskell.
> The problem with function color exists when you can't abstract over it
Hopefully it's safe read this as there's no common static type between function and async function meaning APIs (that take functions as arguments) have to provide seperate methods (or overloading) for these different colours.
Like in typescript you can write `<T>(f: () => T) => T` because an async function statically is just the return type wrapped in a Promise, not something like `async () => T` you can still pass in an async function as an argument.
I think that's a reasonable thing to take issue with, and its _possibly_ an avoidable design problem. That said I can see it being less avoidable if the async function requires some special kind of invocation (like being associated with some kind of async runtime and its a compiled language).
When I see people bring the issue of function colouring, the focus tends to be on the fact that a function is no longer interchangeable with a sync function and now you have to handle a promise, which I personally find unconvincing if the return type really should be a promise then it shouldn't be interchangeable with a sync function.
Don't take this the wrong way but to anyone who has read the book "The High Price of Free Parking" this contribution to this thread reads like someone who came late to a meeting and missed half of the discussion and keeps asking questions that would have been answered had they joined earlier.
I can see why you might ask this, but the book very much focused on the idea that a piece of land much preserve space for a parking space. It might sound innocuous but it is the source of many issues within cities, a contributor to housing inaffordability, why so many buildings in the US are surrounded by miles of parking, why some of the lots in your city are derelict, etc.
The book very much addresses why mandated parking minimums even in suburban residential lots are also bad (specially the mandated minimum less so the carpark itself), I highly recommend the book mentioned above.
Very cool! I don't entirely understand some of the operations, but for what I do understand its pretty neat.
I wish in classes we were introduced to a notion of arithmetic on intervals as it comes up. Like in basic statistics with confidence intervals there's ±, as well as in the quadratic equation. It found some what dissatisfying we couldn't chain the resulting a series of operations and instead repeat the operations for the 2 seperate values of the ±. I get a teacher would rather not get hung up on this because they want to bring it back to the application generally, like solving a more complicated equation or hypothesis testing in basic stats. I just wish they hinted at the idea we can do arithmetic on these kinds of things more generally.
I realise what you've got here is well beyond this, but seeing this was some level of validation that treating the interval as a piece of data with its own behaviour of certain operations does make some sense.
I remember your site! I really like the consistent visual language, even if you didn't make the pixel art, at the very least they go well with your site. I entered my email on your other site, feel free to reach out or whatever, also this is my site https://akst.io
As someone else has said it is publicly funded, it's the same with Australia's ABC news [1]. When you watch it on TV, I guess there are ads for its own shows but other than that they are not allowed run ads. Funnily there are ads shown on its stories on apple news, I always wondered if that was in some violation of the Australia Broadcasting Corporation Act [2].
I opened the book, it looks kind of like an essay. But it says this at the start
> This book was created through an extended collaboration between the author, Claude (Anthropic), and ChatGPT (OpenAI). The structure, pedagogical framework, and frustrations catalog emerged from the author’s two decades of teaching creative coding.
I think it would have been better to make a series of blog posts and held off on writing the book until they felt comfortable doing it without AI and understood how to express this ideas without AI.
Before I saw the AI comment, I felt like giving that to someone looking to learn about this might be overwhelming tbh. Now I feel it would be incredibly harmful like telling the blind to follow the blind. A beginner would be better off just to being told to give whatever they want to do a go and use claude as needed or something if they don't understand it. I did wonder why there was no code, I figure maybe they want to keep it general and keep this more philosophical.
tbh I dig the aesthetic of the book, but idk seeing that in the intro just makes it feel like it isn't worth my time.
There’s something called menu pricing, in order to keep its existing customer base buying their more expensive higher end models there need to be an unjustifiable drop in quality to switch.
The gap in spec is no mistake, if it was appealing enough for existing air-book users to downgrade it would cannibalise their bottomline.
I’ve produced music through much of 2010-2020, I wasn’t there in the 1980-2010s but it wasn’t uncommon see discussion online about different samples or things like this. Never really seen any mention something like this unquantified “je ne sais quoi” or at least don’t really recall
My take is, it was the first of its kind to widely circulate exhibiting desirable quantities for sampling, a combination of good enough and path dependency. After a certain level of saturation/entrenchment it carried an aesthetic compared to readily available samples (maybe this is what you meant).
Whenever I couldn’t find a breakbeat sample (or wanted some starting point at least) I’d default to it. When I did music production it was very easy to get your hands on a loop but obviously that’s much later.