Bullying? You couldn’t find a more powerful word to describe the state taking away your goodies?
Making public goods into voluntarist things like charities isn’t benevolence. Robber barons have no problem giving a pittance to the poor, I’m sure, as long as that keeps them from being “bullied”.
Someone who earns 500K a year and who wants to be taxed more isn’t the problem. They are a principled social democrat. A thing that a country like the US could use more of.
People who look out for themselves and their family only and who wants to make public goods into a voluntarist thing through charities are the problem. They are of no use to anyone except their immediates and are only holding progress back.
Burn (1) and (2) to the ground. Is this an attention economy? If so great, get rid of those two things and I will have more time for myself and my kids!
> I do not live in America and the country I live in has it's own set of special characters to deal with.
Yes. I’ve noticed that programmers from all over the world are narrow-minded and view things like international, inclusive standards to be “bloat”, preferring a monoculture since that would make things simpler (technically simpler, which is all that matters if you have no sense of aesthetics or culture).
Okay, um, a readme file is just the lowest common denominator “what the heck is in this directory tree” file. Something to get your bearings from. Something that can then point to some more fancy documentation like a homepage.
But now I guess it’s a landing page with a bunch of tags at the start. That’s not a good development in my opinion.
Who are People? I’m fine with zero-price but I would also do okay with something-price, because I managed to live just fine before all of these “you are the product” (as technologists constantly gloat) services. What would happen if we reached something-price? I think, in my case, I would just stop using a lot of the services, because (1) I won’t have the budget to pay for for all of them as subscription services, and (2) see the aforementioned point about living just fine without them before.
Because here’s the rub: it’s not like people are addicted or have to have these services—it’s more like they are addicted or have to be a part of the network effect of these services. (Oh I don’t know about that guy, Tony, he ain’t got a FB profile...) And once these services become something-price they just won’t be viable any more, because they are not really essential and paying for 8+ services (or whatever?) is not feasible.
But realistically services like FB are just stuck with their current business model; they will not pivot to something else because they know they would be screwed. But they, of course, twist that into some kind of consumer+small business sympathy spiel.
Design patterns are considered to be things that you can’t express directly in the language (that’s the Design Patterns book definition). Monads can definitely be expressed directly in Haskell. The only thing you can’t do is prove the Monad laws in Haskell (I think?).
Other languages, like e.g. Rust (because of lack of HKT), cannot express monads like Haskell can.
But yeah, you can definitely call it a design pattern if that’s what the culture around the language is like. But it would be like Java folks calling interfaces with default implementations for something goofy like “Interface with stateless implementations pattern”, and even they don’t go that far.
> I'm not sure what the problem is. When Democrat supporters demand more more more via the politicians who promise more more more, where did they think the money would come from?
Who are you addressing? The Democrats who “demand more more more” are likely to be the same people who are fine with taxing the rich more.
Yeah, pretty much. All languages have design patterns, but somehow everything in Java becomes a Pattern. So whether something is called a pattern or not is definitely very culture-dependent.
> This question inappropriately assumes that the Rust compiling design and performance are fixed to what is today, and in particular, that they are entirely inherent to the language.
Either that, or: it asks exactly that question rather than assumes that slow compilation is intrinsic to memory safety etc. But yes, there might be an implicit premise about some part of the Rust design contributing to slow compilation times.