- scotty79So the US has always been terrible to the countries which growth they exploited?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization_in_Ca...
Give China 50 years and I'm sure they are gonna be properly sad about what happened to Uyghurs, western style.
Or not. Measures applied to Uyghurs were done under the banner of fight with terror, which the West waved fervently as well. Although US decided to direct their zeal outside, bombing several countries and killing countless "enemies" which were defined as everybody within the blast radius. Were attempts of China at controlling their islamist minority so uncomparably worse?
Especially when we compare them to how they approached the problem of pandemics. They obviously have no qualms about attempting sweeping solutions regardless of religion and ethnicity of those affected.
- How does it compare to the last 50-70 years of US actions? Even if all narratives are true and significant, China could still massively benefit the world same way US did despite its vast shortcomings.
- It's kind of nasty that a fresh society of capable people has the drive to achieve technological excellence and the incumbents do whatever they can to delay this, even though it's inevitable and there's a lot to gain by empowering them. All in the name of "they are not us".
World has gained so much from modern Chinese industrial revolution. Why suddenly everyone got cold feet? Nobody was stopping Germany or Japan on their way up even though they were literal former enemies with history of brutal warfare. China never done anything even comparable to others.
- That's absolutely wonderful. Great illustration why Europe needs to oust any American based service from the market. If Americans want to have access to EU customers they should be doing it only through local company (they are allowed to own) that doesn't obey US law, but only European law instead.
- So hard drugs are a thick desire?
After all who says change is always a good thing? When you are doing well maybe it's better to stick to thin desires?
- Not just FOSS. Many corporate apps have exactly the same problems with notification delivery. Those systems barely work.
- How did we end up with this mess of disjoint chat systems each with their own userbase? Doesn't it indicate that this market desperately needs regulation? Would email look the same if it was left to be invented by the corporations?
Either you provide message interchange with any other message system operating in a specific country or you can't advertise or sell anything in this country (also app stores must country wide ban). Bootstrap by taking two largest chats and offering them provisional access to the market for few months. If they can provide interchange between them they can remain and others can follow. If not bigest one is out, let's say for two years and the third one (pre-ban) tries to establish interchange with the remaining of the two biggest.
- If I feel hopeless, I might think that I live best possible life for me (and answer 10) despite feeling deeply unhappy about it.
- Yeah, you are right that ease of drilling down values through the layers is balanced by the need to remember which places actually do something with the value.
While I always liked dynamic languages and probably wrote most of my code in them I don't think they are useful anymore. Tooling got great and LLMs need every chance they get of verifying stuff they hallucinated. At this point I wouldn't mind a language that's strict about typing but other things as well as ownership, protocols, mandatory assertions, tests, code coverage, even some formal verification. As long as I don't have to write them, but LLM does and uses them to check its work, I'm really fond of it.
- > So with dynamic typing, you will have to change the same amount of code if you want your code to stay correct.
No, because if a piece of data is pushed through multiple layers you can just change its type at the source and the destination and not in all the layers the data is pushed through. And you can still be correct.
Imagine you have a thing called target which is a description of some endpoint. You can start with just a string, but at one point decide that instead of string you'd prefer object of a class. In dynamic language you just change the place where it originates and the place where it's used. You don't need to change any spot in 3 layers that just forearded target because they were never forced assumed it's a string.
You can achieve that in staticly typed language if you never use primitive types in your parametrs and return types or if you heavily use generics on everything, but it's not how most people write code.
Tools can help you with the changes, but such refactors aren't usually available in free tools. At least they weren't before LLMs. So the best they could do for most people was to take them on a journey through 3 layers to have them make manual change from string to Target at every spot.
- Sorry, fat fingers on a touchscreen ... What I meant to write was "After all you are the one with a problem." Apologies for being uncharitable. I was in a rough mood when I wrote that.
- One of the benefits of UUIDs is that you can easily merge data coming from multiple databases. Auto-increments cause collisions.
- Not really. Strongly typed languages don't usually support not having any types in your code (or any amount of gradual typing). At least not with any convenient syntax. There's usually some one clumsy "dynamic" type that doesn't interact with the rest of the system well and you'd be crazy to start writing your code using only this dynamic type.
I can't just write C++ like:
I also can't tell JS this shouldn't be allowed. But I can tell this to TS, at any stage of evolution of my program.any a = 1; a = "Hi!"; - There's value to anyone willing to listen to you talking about your problem. Otherwise rubber duck debugging wouldn't work.
Why don't you ask some questions about their obviously wrong solutions instead od spoiling the fun they have guessing? After all to are the one with a problem.
- > I am a professional problem solver
The question is, do you want to be anything more than that?
Even as a problem solver you might ask yourself, what should I do in any given interaction to not become the additional secondary problem myself.
- Yeah, tooling for strongly typed languages is way better than 20 years ago. They are getting very being usable.
- If you have such a beast you have n problems. Not being able to apply AI to it is just (n+1)th.
It works great when dealing with microservices architecture that was all the rage recently. Of course it doesn't solve it's main issue that is that microservices talk to each other but it still lets you sprint through a lot of work.
It's just that if you engineered (or engineer) things well, you get immediate huge benefits from AI coders. But if all you did last decade was throw in more spaghetti into already a huge bowl of spaghetti you are out of luck. Serves you right. The sad thing is that most humans will get pushed out into doing this kind of "real development" so it's probably a good time to learn to love legacy, because you are legacy.
- You tax where you can not where you should. Corporations trivially hide profits. What they couldn't hide well was labor. You know what else they can't hide? Their power bill. It even works for companies that eternally operate "at loss" (which also parallels taxing labor).
- You could tax the energy and subsidize it for individuals. It's the ultimate resource that all business uses. But that would mean unscrupulous countries could tax their energy less and attract AI farms. So probably you need to tax imported tokens (and other goods) as well. There could be many benefits of taxing grid energy instead of labor.