If you google "farmer name activist" the results light up like a christmas tree. (Where the actual name is substituted in, of course.)
Regardless of the merits of the actual issue being protested, presenting this as "poor innocent farmer arrested for going five seconds over" doesn't seem accurate.
I previously observed that of course getting arrested wasn't something he would have planned...
OTOH, given that this is the second time the "five seconds over" story has been posted to HN, seems like somebody is leveraging the 'Streisand Effect'.
If you google "Darren Blanchard activist", the screen lights up, TV, newspapers, etc. So, not his first time on the dance floor.
I'm not going to address whether what happened was completely right, or the merits of the underlying discussion. But this is not a case of a poor dirt farmer shocked at being arrested. I'd be very surprised myself if he didn't at least think that was a possible outcome (and would not presume to suggest that it was intended in any way whatsoever, obviously being arrested would be detrimental to his cause!).
See my prior comment: IMO it's the caller's issue that (guaranteed) TCE is needed. The callee should not have to do anything.
One of the things I forget to give thanks to the Rust designers for is the default of immutability. I remember my days in a Java environment where policy was "everything needs to be declared final" (so "final" got spattered all over the place) with zero nostalgia. Requiring TCE callees to explicitly represent themselves as TCE-friendly would be the same sort of abomination.
As a user of the feature, it's the caller that needs the guaranteed elimination (and, presumably, is willing to pay for it, in syntax / compile time / run time / cognitive load). The 'zero cost feature' (only pay if used) principle seems broken if the callee has to indicate something special.
The compiler is free to do something clever (eg., two versions of fn Foo(...), one guaranteeing TCE), but as a developer merely using Foo, I don't want to have to decorate it (or, in a library, have it already decorated) to make TCE (not just TCO) possible. That requirement would constitute delving into the internals.
I won't argue with wikipedia, but assuming it's correct the 'standard nomenclature' seems sloppy to me. The whole point of the original post was taking advantage of the guarantee of TCE (elimination), vs TCO ("give it a try but oops, oh well, whatever...").
I suppose maybe TCE (as distinct from TCO) should be expanded to include any mechanism that doesn't expand the stack / heap / whatever for things that rhyme with recursion (in which case the existing sloppiness may as well stand, but we need a new TLA).
Article does not seem to mention whether the bus pulls into the secured area (so that you don't have to go through the security stuff again). The smaller airport is a nice option (same security, but smaller so less congestion and lineup).
At this point, they've already invested their resources (and also you, yours).
If employed, then it's easy to point out that that's your cost in a vacation/PTO/"sick" day.
If not, point out that you are not currently working at mickydee so your time is worth more than minimum wage. If they stick at that, make out a reasonable guess at their cost of this process and point out that a day of your time is not a massive additional fraction. If they stick at that, ask if this means you are on the "short list", and how many others are on it. If they stick at that, then you have useful information about what they think you are worth and are likely to offer.
I'm really disappointed in patio11 over this one (and I reckon he has a lot of good things to say).
This is going back on other posts (in particular, this one: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/the-long-shadow-of-ch...), where he (correctly, I think) suggests that today's payment systems move risk to the parties most capable of assessing and (if necessary) absorbing it.
This post seems to throw seniors with cognitive issues under the bus ("That decision has a cost. Grandma sometimes pays it.").
Now it does seem that he is being careful in some phrasings. I see it as possible (but only with multiple readings) that he is in fact critical of the current regulatory regime.
For instance, the paragraph beginning "It is the ordinary and appropriate..." suggests that it's not 'we the people' but 'we the corporates', but that can't be said upfront.
Maybe that phrase that rankles is a call to action...?
Question for this community: am I misreading this?
There's another comment that points out that a g-le search will pick up few false positives (disclaimer, have not tried myself). So the initial 'WTF' gives way to 'well, ok, I see what you are trying to do'.
Yep. Just did a reimage update to Fedora 43, got errors about 'ptyxis' in some shell scripts. Wat (wipes desk and keyboard)?
Oh, it's the graphical terminal program (alternative to 'gnome-terminal'). Well, um, ok.
However, I will concede, after more digging as to why (as it rankled), that there was a "have to choose a unique name" issue there (even leaving aside trademark issues). I'm resigned (so I suppose signed up) to deal with residual issues that crop up going forward.
I love to mock '*ly.com' names for almost certainly doomed enterprises, but I get that at least it wasn't already taken.
Seems like extortion. The public display business has tanked (sorry), so now it's either send them to China, euthanize them, or ask the public purse to subsidize care of the animals (ie., the new business is 'take government money to do a "good thing"').
I do have concerns about 'send them to China', since I think that that would be another display zoo with no qualms about continuing exploitation.
I don't like option three, and the reports I've seen (Guardian but also CBC etc) suggest that rewilding is off the table. I'd be ok with "the people of Canada will take care of the whales, but your business is your problem". I'd be ok with proving this point even if someone claims that the existing business could do it cheaper. A separate sanctuary would make clear that 'we care about the animals, but not your business plan as it relates to the public purse', to establish a policy.
If it is really the case that option 1 (china) is considered ongoing torture, and option three is unaffordable/unimplementable, then I guess that option 2 (euthanizing) is a front runner.
>> But if you end up selling it off for what seems to you to be a
trivial sum: that’s because your family was successful enough to
not end up needing it.
Regardless of the merits of the actual issue being protested, presenting this as "poor innocent farmer arrested for going five seconds over" doesn't seem accurate.
I previously observed that of course getting arrested wasn't something he would have planned...
OTOH, given that this is the second time the "five seconds over" story has been posted to HN, seems like somebody is leveraging the 'Streisand Effect'.