So? The problem is our school systems and or work environments, not our biology.
We are a VERY significant minority of the population, and our institutions are not working for us. We should organize and do something about it instead instead of letting people try to medicate away our differences.
I've argued with a lot of friends about the "buy it for life" meme. I think it overlooks how quickly people change what they want from their things.
Maybe a more healthy meme could be: "Buy high-quality things, but never buy new". If you believe a product is durable, you should be comfortable with buying it used. If you end up not needing the thing anymore, you should be able to sell it again without any waste or loss of value.
People need to stop using the word "hate" and start calling people out whenever they use it. "Hate" just means "blasphemy". Once you make this substitution, discussions like this start to make a lot more sense.
Serious question: If people want to post blasphemy, what's preventing them from doing so? [...] I honestly don’t understand why mainstream social media websites should be allowing that sort of thing.
I think it's just conflicting with your religious beliefs, so you automatically interpret it as "simplistic" and "mischaracterizing" to avoid seriously engaging with legitimate ideas that question your tribal beliefs.
Do be fair, he said "impure language" and not "impure code".
"Looks like we need to let the scholars know - there are 18,300 uses of the non-word "performant" in scholarly papers" <- If that's not sarcasm, something is wrong. Performant is a word!
I think the similarities are mostly superficial. I mean it has (local) type inference, ADTs, and traits (which are sooooorta like type classes). But, as a Haskell programmer, the Rust type system feels very foreign.
No typeclasses (and associated goodness), GADTs, HKTs, Monadic IO, first class functions, generic deriving, higher rank types, existential type, etc. These are bread-and-butter features in day-to-day Haskell work. Rust's type system isn't powerful enough to build the vast majority of the tools that Haskell programmers use every day.
I don't mean this as a criticism; The Rust design seems solid. But different priorities lead to different trade-offs, and the end result is a very different type system.
It really doesn't have that much in common with Haskell either. It's designed by people who are not oblivious about PL stuff, but it's still pretty thoroughly in the C/C++ world in terms of both syntax and semantics.
It's not a bad thing, but Rust has very little in common with Haskell/Ocaml; aside from stealing a couple of good ideas.
The article spends a lot of time talking about how "Complicated" abstractions are, and about how abstractions come with a complexity cost. IMHO, the opposite is true.
> Whenever I work in Rust, I find myself having a good time mucking around with the abstractions.
Good abstractions, the kind you use in Haskell and (presumably) Rust are simple, non-leaky, and exist to enable simple, correct code.
It's true that abstractions, even good abstractions, take time to learn. However, once you've digested them, you'll see them everywhere, and you can continue to use them for the rest of your life. Functors, for example, are a foundational abstraction. They are extremely simple, extremely powerful, and will relevant forever.
1.4 tastes terrible. I've been using it, but I've developed a very specific ritual for making it palatable, and it's still not an enjoyable experience.
If 1.5 is anywhere near as tasty as 1.3, then I strongly recommend that you give it another try. You might be able to buy some from Craigslist or something? I don't know if that's still a thing.
Are you sure you're not still waking up in the middle of the cycle? 90 minutes is just a loose generalization. Different people have different sleep cycles and take different amounts of time to fall asleep.
Personally, 2 hours works well for me but 90 minutes does not.