skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And it would have been far harder to read for those new to the generic code base. Complex abstractions make people feel smart, they rarely make code easier to understand or maintain.
Not in this way. Propositions are supposed to cover a single specific issue, they can't cover a whole area of law. You can pass a prop saying the legislature must refer to any dog as 'your honor', and the legislature would forever have to respect it and not be allowed to repeal it. However, you can't then add wording in this proposition saying that the legislature can't pass similar laws for referring to cats with higher honorifics, which is what Prop 22 tried.
> So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine?

Courts don't usually answer this question. They leave that up to future court cases.

It would be really hard for a court to answer that question in the affirmative (that a law is totally sound and will hold up to all further legal scrutiny). The court case is always about specific things (a lawsuit will be brought around specific clauses in the law, and all the arguments in the court are going to be focused on those clauses). The court isn't examining the law as a whole, only the specific claims of the lawsuit. There is no way the court is going to be able to know all the possible arguments about a law without having them argued in front of them.
More concise, yes. Simpler? Maybe[0].

And for the record, I'm mostly in favor of adding generics to Go.

[0]: https://talks.golang.org/2015/simplicity-is-complicated.slid...
There are languages that do this already though. Use Python. Reusable everything, just wait for exceptions.

I've spent time in C, Python, Go, Js, and some lesser known languages. I was really big into Python. Go seemed restrictive at first, but was immensely more safe and predictable.
I had 2 shots of AZ but the same experience. Rough initial period, but the second one was fine. I don't plan to get a third one until they make an updated vaccine for the newer variants like delta. What's the point if it's the old vaccine?
this is bad. I really hope this doesn’t effect the rate of ev adoption(excluding gm’s contributions). karma’s a bitch!
> What's so terrible about wearing a mask?

Their efficiency at stopping the spread is extremely small, and the whole debate takes energy away from things that actually work that we should be doing instead.

Masks are virtue-signaling talismans at best, just look at how people are actually using them.
VIC-20
Can you give an example of terrible unreadable go code due to a lack of generics? I’ve grown to love go because it’s one of the few languages where I can jump into a new code base and relatively easily understand what is going on.
Did I describe it in such way? Or is it you bending the argument to the opposite religious extremum? What for?
... your response seems to imply that you admit that when accused you were being racist?

I admitted that, I apologized for it, and I wasn't immediately struck dead by lightning. My nonwhite friends or coworkers wrinkled their noses for a moment, then continued as if they had forgotten about it. It's not as though I had surprised them. White Americans of a certain age (say... 14?) who claim never to have done or said anything racist might be fooling themselves, but they aren't fooling anyone else.

Even more scandalously, in addition to apologizing for momentary racism as described above, I've apologized before when I wasn't convinced I had done or said anything wrong. I didn't get struck by lightning then either!

Not only did I suffer no adverse consequences from these episodes, but it's certain that very few white Americans have suffered any adverse consequences from similar episodes. (If e.g. a teacher in a public school recites the Ku Klux Klan Kreed while beating a minority student with a stick, she might get fired, but I would consider that a different level of racism.) TFA pretends for a moment that some relatively innocent whites have suffered due to this phenomenon, but no actual examples are given or linked. Then TFA quickly transitions to a complicated argument about unanimity.

When we're young, it seems like a great injustice to set aside our own point of view in order to validate someone else's point of view. In a sense, it is a sort of injustice. However, injustice is common in this world. The reason so few people get angry about stupid rude shit like "You are so articulate!" (to use an example TFA apparently considers harmless) is because that would be a recipe for getting angry all the time. Going through life having to regularly just swallow that shit is a burden. If all I have to do to lighten that burden just a bit is to occasionally apologize and try to improve, I don't see why I shouldn't. TFA denies that reality, so it makes life in USA worse.
> If your employer is pressuring you to do something you are not legally required to do and don't want to

One should always put a price on actions your employer wants you to do, so that there's an economic back pressure. For example, if an employer forces you to use work phone as a personal phone for dogfooding purposes, you must extract a price out of your employer for giving up this privacy. Or quit, if the price the employer is too high for an employer to pay.
c'mon, they couldn't have named it the Amazon Genomics Toolkit CLI or something to get a T in there and then made the binary be named "agtc" instead of "agc"?
What percentage of California voters do you believe read that language?
"Is the argument [...]? Is the argument [...]? If the argument is something else, what is it?"

This not difficult at all. Playing dumb isn't clever, it's just obnoxious.

The argument, stated amply before, is that URLs are not private.

Email being a private medium or not is orthogonal.
This is one of the best definitions of 'minimalism' I've seen.
Learning things outside of complex computer science topics often adds more value to the world. The ability to write useful programs without dedicating ones life to esoteric comp sci topics is a net positive for the world.
Healthy children are at approximately one-in-a-million risk of dying from covid-19 if they get infected. It's more dangerous for you to drive someplace with your kid than for your kid to remain unvaccinated.

Children in risk groups should of course get vaccinated.

But we're much better off making sure the limited supply of vaccines go to older people in other parts of the world than to healthy kids in the developed world that don't need them.
While it's true that some find it liberating, a large number don't — personally, I've written a fair amount of production Go code and found it unnecessarily verbose and repetitive in ways that generics would've helped. I imagine some of this is based on problem domain; if you're writing a web application for example, maybe you don't really need generics much. After all, how often do you need a function that logs in a user to also log in... a book you're selling? Not very often. And any advanced data structures probably live in your database: how much do you really need a B-tree in a webapp when you've already got one in MySQL?

That being said for a lot of other uses, you really do want high quality data structures beyond "array" and "dictionary."
Calories are only a single axis within the extremely complicated question that is food quality. It is quite difficult to keep all the variables in one's conscious mind when deciding what to eat. Humans luckily have a very useful set of biofeedback mechanisms that effortless tell you if food is healthy or not, but most people ignore these systems by eating mindlessly and have damaged these systems through poor diet.

The goals of my simple rules have nothing to do with calories; that calorie reduction might pop out if you are overeating is simply a happy side effect of mindful eating (rule 3) and avoiding foods that disrupt the body's feedback systens (rules 1 and 2). Artifical sweeteners are especially dangerous because by weakening the connection between 'sweetness' and 'energy density' they tend to induce people to eat more calories than they otherwise would [1]. If you are trying to count calories while feeding your sweet tooth with splenda you are probably doing yourself a disservice by fighting against human biology. It is better to simply not feed the sweet tooth at all and allow biology to work for you.

I'm really not sure what a 'big win' in calorie counting even is. One of my friends used to eat glorified carboard mixed with artifical sweeteners so she could 'enjoy' the experience of eating while not conusming calories. I think this was a 'big win' for her, but she didn't lose weight. It was an unhealthy behavior.

The green vegetables rule is about eating more green vegetables. They're good for you. High quality vegetables contain important micronutrients. You should cook them because fire is what allowed early apes to stop spending their entire day chewing and develop civilization. One of the problems with the oil prohibition is that it discourages people from eating sauteed vegetables, which are probably one of the best things you can eat. If you are ditching sauteed vegetables for 100 calorie bags of Doritos because you are afraid of olive oil you are probably not living the healthiest possible lifestyle.

--

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/
> The study included 104 severely obese (Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥ 35 kg/m2) men

Wouldn't obesity more a factor than a sleep apnea for testosterone levels?
sequencediagram.org
If i wanted or needed generics i would use another language. I have been able to write great code without them for 5 years now though. But now i get to defend my codebases from the unneeded introduction of them from largely developers who think they are too smart.
What relation does your question have to the statement you're quoting?
Here is the order:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos...

Things to know:

1. This was a referendum statute and not a referendum amendment.

2. referendum statutes can't normally be amended by the legislature directly, but they can submit it back to the voters by normal majority vote on the legislation/etc. The referendums can, if they want, add ways for the legislature to amend it without going back to the voters.

3. With that in mind, here are the issues:

A. Prop22 inartfully tries to say it can only be amended by 7/8th vote of the legislature. That would, normally, be unconstitutional- the constitution requires allowing the majority vote + submit back to voters. To avoid this, the court has (IMHO, correctly) interpreted this to be just be a way to amend the statute without going back to the voters, rather than the only way to amend it at all.
It also tries to change the publication rules for any possible amendments (which is also not allowed to do to the majority vote path, and so this is severed and only applies to the 7/8th path)

B. California has a single subject rule on ballot amendments.
This statute has a stated subject/purpose (too long to quote). That purpose/subject does not include collective bargaining, even a little. It does not talk, in any part of the statute, about collective bargaining.

At the very end, after just about all meaningful text it attempts to limit collective bargaining it in a super-odd way. It says anything dealing with collective bargaining is considered an amendment to the statue and is explicitly subject it to the 7/8th rule to pass it
. By defining anything related to collective bargaining as an amendment, it causes itself to run afoul of the single subject rule - it's entirely unrelated to anything in the statute.

It also can't subject it only to the 7/8th rule as it attempts to do, but as above, that would normally be reinterpreted by the court to say "7/8th rule or submitting back to voters".

The court severed this provision, which seems right.

C. Even if the above issue didn't exist, the actual constitution (remember, this is not an amendment) provides that the Legislature shall have the power to create worker's compensation laws “unlimited by any provision of this Constitution”. So, the statute's attempt to limit workers comp also fails. The statute, for some reason, also says this provision may not be severed, so if it is held unconstitutional, like here, the entire statute is struck down.

On appeal, B will be argued about to death because the single subject rule is easily twistable. But since it is severable, i think a court will sever it in the end.

C will have a flat yes/no ruling - either it's usurping power the legislature has (without being an amendment) or it's not.
On its face, it's hard to see how you can successfully argue it's not. The wording in the california constitution is pretty strong.
The superior court takes the reasonable position that an amendment-by-ballot could change workers comp because it can overrule the constitutional provision, but that an statute-by-ballot cannot.
It would take some mental gymnastics to uphold this part.
Well, if I work on it at work for work then the attribution should be under my work email. Otherwise, it should be under my personal email.

So far, the only problem I've ever had with separate accounts (including contributing to FOSS) is one time (once!) somebody selected the wrong email alias to review a CL. That took all of (literally) 10 seconds to fix.
If I'm confused why something is happening I'll set a break point and then use the debugger to see what the world looks like at that point. That's an advantage when something happens very rarely. One trick is to write a test to detect a problem and then put a break point on that. Let it run until the bug gets hit. Then look at the call stack to see who was naughty.

I use debug print statements to monitor running programs while doing end to end tests.

I have functions to log errors and restart programs in production. Any busfault gets trapped and logged as well. Often just knowing which line of code barfed tells you what happened. Often I also log the calling address off the stack.

I also have a table driven command line interface that I use heavily to poke at and inspect running programs. Having that probably reduces my need for a debugger. Unlike a debugger it's effect on a running program is minimal.

For timing related stuff and debugging bus interfaces I often use a four channel scope.
From what I have seen over the years, the "I don't want generics" crowd showed up just as often as the "Go is useless without generics" crowd. This time, though, only one of those groups can reasonably continue to comment.
Shame how k8s was a failure without generics. Think what could have been.
I was familiar with the idea 2nd wave colonialism being driven by explicit international competition, and also of colonialism as farming markets/demand. But I hadn't thought of them at the same time.

Also overall great developmental history.
Pretty amazing how fully featured this tool is: https://sequencediagram.org/instructions.html

And it seems to be completely free and non-monetized.
How is a generic data structure a COMPLEX ABSTRACTION?
I don't understand the point of the title to the document?
The forest is supposed to burn right. Thats the way the ecology of cali works right.
It's pretty harmful psychologically to see yourself as a victim, no matter how much you really are or not. There is something wrong with fixation on it, it's self-destructive. It also destroys relationships because the victim sees their partner as an oppressor and finds a way to blame them for everything they don't like.
Maybe so but if you give people a tube of the stuff with instructions for a horse, and they try to take it, they are likely to overdose. Even if they try to adjust the dose, they have to do conversions and weigh it. Some people will mess up the calculations and OD. That's why the pharmacy just tells you to take 2 pills twice a day.

That's not to mention the fact that the quality control of veterinary medicine is far lower and the concentration may be significantly off.
those aren't generics they're from the canadian aboriginal syllabic block
I’ve always seen prop 22 as the counter attack to a union driven AB5. Both are bad, but I agree having legislators directly implement laws from lobbyists (as was the case for AB 5) is worse.
Is this northeast enough: https://vocm.com/2021/08/10/forest-fire-burning-east-of-chur... ?

Forest fire are sufficiently cyclical that some trees, like the pitch pine, depends on them for the seeds to open.
I can sympathize with this concern; constraints can force authors to just write simpler code which has some very nice benefits. But that leaves out some legitimate use cases like collections that were terribly served by genericless-go.

Yes there will be some pockets of libraries where authors take generics to an extreme. Besides being a bit of fun, it's good to explore the edges of what you can do with the language, so this exercise will be valuable even if you don't use them regularly in your projects.

But I don't really see pervasive gratuitous use of generics becoming a big problem for the average lib, Go devs tend to lean practical on potentially abused features like this, and there will be many users like yourself that will still prefer simpler interfaces. I guess we'll see over time.

Really, Go's lack of generics for so long wasn't an ethos (despite many taking it that way) but more that the right implementation just hadn't revealed itself yet. I think the one they chose is a pretty good match for Go, and I hope that it makes Go more complete.
Rapid evolutionary escape risk from vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
> It is using a game to teach real life

Monopoly was devised as a game to teach the evils of the free market. But Monopoly-world's rules don't match real life rules, enough so that its "lessons" have no bearing.

Some of those rules are 1) a finite board 2) finite number of players 3) no possibility for creating more products
> CITATION.cff files are plain text files with human- and machine-readable citation information. When we detect a CITATION.cff file in a repository, we use this information to create convenient APA or BibTeX style citation links that can be referenced by others.

https://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle RDFa and JSON-LD can be parsed with a standard Linked Data parser. Looks like YAML-LD requires quoting e.g. "@context": and "@id":

From https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archi... ; in your repo's /CITATION.cff:

cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this software, please cite it as below."
authors:
- family-names: "Lisa"
given-names: "Mona"
orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0000-0000-0000"
- family-names: "Bot"
given-names: "Hew"
orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0000-0000-0000"
title: "My Research Software"
version: 2.0.4
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1234
date-released: 2017-12-18
url: "https://github.com/github/linguist"

https://citation-file-format.github.io/
This generates the bibtex code for you.
Doesn't that mean all of his gaming could have happened like a decade ago?
oboy yet another citation format standard
Kinda sad to think future generations of Mac users won’t be able to write self modifying assembly. I feel like that’s a fun learning experience
Sri Lanka handball team vanishes (2004)
I think people are being confused by this.

My understanding is that it is not the specific supermajority requirement that is the issue, because as others say, propositions are already by default not able to be changed or overturned by the legislature (if they were, propositions would be pointless because any proposition the legislature wants to be law would have already been passed as a normal law, and any proposition the legislature doesn't want would be changed by the majority who didn't want the law.)

The real issue is that the court is ruling that the clause is violating the single subject rule for propositions, and is restricting the legislature from making laws that are outside the scope of what the proposition says it is about. The 7/8th thing would be fine if they were just giving a way for the legislature to amend the actual proposition... instead, it is restricting the legislature from being able to make laws that are not affecting the direct stated single purpose of the proposition.

The tool is fine, it is what the tool is being used on.
That was a disgusting moment to watch. They refused to debate the issue in a proper format (meaning not Twitter). They called on him for being part of a privileged class (white man) as if that explains his accomplishments.

Later I got interested to know more about their views so I found out they have a policy of not giving a "platform" to their opponents - refusing to debate them in other words, preferring cancellations, shaming and appeals to emotion instead.
What it sounds like is that if you're maintaining things it needs to be something important to the business to get promoted, but if you create something new then it doesn't have to be.
Can you link a single credit card to multiple accounts?

Also, if they notice the same people, from the same IP, with the same credit card, (...), are running a bunch of accounts, why wouldn't them ban it all after a ToS violation?
> What is the advantage of this

Right? There's also RIS, EndNote, and a others. Did we really need ANOTHER format?
There are the usual operators and special functions like append(), which is implemented in the compiler and works on arbitrary slices. Not many of them, though.

They are defined in the builtin pseudo-package:
https://pkg.go.dev/builtin
> "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control."

> "Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions. With the emergence of new strains of SARS-CoV-2 with altered transmissibility and immune evasion potential, a critical question is this: how easily can the virus escape neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) targeting the spike RBD?"

> "Our modeling suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutants with one or two mildly deleterious mutations are expected to exist in high numbers due to neutral genetic variation, and consequently resistance to vaccines or other prophylactics that rely on one or two antibodies for protection can develop quickly -and repeatedly- under positive selection."

> "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the population increases substantially as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission that exert specific pressure on other proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune escape"

> In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus, greatly increasing the risk of immune escape.

> "Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities"
They also have absolutely terrible performance due to poor cache locality and putting pressure on GC
Youtube’s release notes: “Fixed bugs, improved performance, took the afternoon off”.
You say "verbose and repetitive", I say "easy to read without any surprises".

The verbose patterns (if err!= nil for example) make the code predictable to read, you notice the code smell of missing error handling really fast.
If masks are used at a distance outdoors in the context of essential services during a lockdown with no shared indoor spaces they are ~extremely~ effective at preventing viral spread.

I agree though they are contributing arguably more harm than good now by encouraging people to feel safe making unnecessary contact.