Thank you for your comment. I will try to remember and apply it.
I have a similar concept, which is roughly described as "don't extend your own arm onto the chopping block, but make use of other people doing the same". Don't make presumptions, and you will never be wrong. Don't dig holes for yourself. Be kind, respectful, genuine. Don't throw the first punch, but don't let innocent people get hurt. Find common ground. When they extend out their arm, take their hand and guide them towards truth and goodness.
Perhaps I am wrong about Tit-for-Tat. It's been a while since I checked my source. In any case, my point (not to say that you deny it) is not to take any result in an idealized game too literally, and that consistent defection is bad.
I do not know your circumstances, but see what you think of this:
I have a nascent theory about human feelings, which goes that the basic feelings we experience are usually perceived through extensive filtering by our personal, social, cultural, etc., beliefs/experiences. The convincing conscious perception of a feeling may be misinterpreted to an extent. Anger is an emotion that can often become misdirected. Supposedly, sexual arousal can be interpreted in translation from fear[0].
Someone who is suicidal may consider suicide seriously, but feel an urge to live in the process of suicide. Circumstance may make certain feelings clear, but by examining removed from circumstance, the person had the capacity for both feelings. There is some "essence" to the person that those feelings, brought on by circumstance, only scratch the surface of. Observing a narrow range of circumstances and assuming it is the essence is a mistake.
I think that more or less every person, in their essence, understands human decency. It may be that some people truly don't have the capacity to appreciate it (thought: aliens?), but usually, I think the real culprit is learned behavior through various factors, and innate cognitive biases. I don't mean to say that it is easy to change people, because the opposite is generally true, but I think it is worth thinking about.
That said, if there was someone who truly needed to, say, murder the way we need to eat, I say that they would do no wrong by murdering, but that we would do no wrong by apprehending them. I wish to get to people at their essences, not their accidents.
The optimal decision in the Prisoner's Dilemma is to defect, but in the iterated version, where multiple Dilemmas occur and people remember previous results, Tit-For-Tat is optimal. The real world is even less reminiscent of the Dilemma, so it's not at all clear that the Dilemma's conclusion applies.
(Tit-For-Tat: Prefer cooperating, but if the other person defected on the previous turn, defect on the current turn.)
Same. Somehow there tends to be some "pattern" that stands out, but I guess it's just a mix of the likelihood of "something interesting" and our minds being tuned to pick out "anything interesting". I've memorized a few SSNs and license plate numbers this way, and some digits of pi. I like it; it feels like normal memorization with a twist, without having to resort to "hardcore" techniques.
I don't think it's so easy to get true information out of all the noise in the markets, and in any case, I don't see how this helps with the fact that corruption is bad. So what if I learn that a country will be wrongfully invaded? Can I have someone impeached for it?
If a lot of people have that as their hobby, and some are careless or malicious, people will be harmed. Now suppose that it's not simple to stop the offenders directly. Instead, restricting the sale of nuclear isotopes or cholera samples would probably be highly effective.
I agree that I should understand the other person and take them seriously, and to convey this to the other person. However, sometimes verbal reflection serves the purpose of blind affirmation. I don't think the verbal component, construed this way, is so productive for empathy.
Military action would be brutal, but you can only say that it's unnecessary if the alternatives are better. If not now, then how many years down the line? The claims Carney are making are not light in their own right.
The establishment Democrats are not exactly "aggressively progressive" by any reasonable standard. They shunned Bernie Sanders, who still isn't highly radical.
Rather, Russia attacked Ukraine as a great power oppressing a smaller power, and had every opportunity to cease, with or without international intervention. No one attacked Russia first.
Someone had to take the plunge. Regardless of the other political considerations at present and whatever future events will happen, I respect Carney's initiative. I also appreciate the reference to Havel's essay; to me, its insight always felt obvious but also difficult to apply. But framed in this way, I understand. For some time, I've felt that the United States has been the leading example of a country that is powerful through narrative. Narratives are naturally idealized, but at some point the gap becomes too large to tolerate.
I'm not qualified to give a complete answer, but I think two main issues are the proliferation of flags in standard tools (e.g. ls has a lot of flags for sorting behavior) and the extreme preference for plain text. Text is very useful, but a lot of semantic information gets discarded. Representing structured data is painful, stdin/stdout/stderr are all in one place, window resizing makes a mess sometimes (even "write at end of line" isn't given), and so on. I'm definitely not qualified to describe just how to fix these issues, though.
I think this is an after-the-fact connection, rather than an intuitive discovery. I wouldn't explain memoization this way. Memoization doesn't need to specifically use an array, and depending on the argument types, indexing into the array could be very unusual.
For the time being, I consider alloc and std to be part of the language, and the compiler also has provisions for them if they are used. If the alternative is supposed to be only using core, then the language does not provide for control over allocations the way Zig does. Imposing allocations with no control and not providing allocations at all are both failure modes. With enough effort, anyone could do anything, but programming languages exist to control and enhance certain things under their purview. Rust does not have a comparable facility to control allocations like it controls ownership and borrowing. Just as C-with-tooling being safe isn't the same as C being safe, Rust-with-libraries providing control over allocations isn't the same as Rust providing control over allocations.
Other people have given good insights, so I'll instead describe one of my pet theories.
Given by how we talk about emotions, I think they are "rational", but operate under a different set of rules than we normally apply to "rational" thinking. In fact, feelings are deeply intertwined with our supposedly "rational" thinking, to the point where I don't think there is a significant boundary. The lack of information is prevalent when feelings are in play, and I believe the same is true in general. Even physics feels far different than pure mathematics, after all. Instead of deferring to conventions in how to act when feelings are involved, as if they belong to a wholly different and mysterious world, we can make sense of the entire world. But of course, empathy, kindness, and good judgement are not exempt. None of this conflicts with what you're saying, but I think a subtle shift in mindset will be fruitful in applying it.
I have a similar concept, which is roughly described as "don't extend your own arm onto the chopping block, but make use of other people doing the same". Don't make presumptions, and you will never be wrong. Don't dig holes for yourself. Be kind, respectful, genuine. Don't throw the first punch, but don't let innocent people get hurt. Find common ground. When they extend out their arm, take their hand and guide them towards truth and goodness.