I recently purchased a BOOX device, it is a large e-ink tabled which runs android. I have google drive sync a specific folder and it works seamlessly to read and markup pdfs, epub, djvu. The screen is excellent for reading and writing. I bought one of the 10 inch devices but they have full 13 inch models that are a bit more expensive.
https://www.youtube.com/@LowByteProductions/videos - Previously called Low Level JavaScript builds various low level or fundamental components from scratch in JavaScript/TypeScript and a bit of C lately I think.
It is still alive, it has just moved to github! It is a big language and it can prove useful programs. Apparently, part of the Ethereum 2 specification was verified using it. https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny
I have been learning it and the syntax is close to most C style programming languages. As a software developer this makes it much more approachable than Coq. The proof statements also feel more like the math I learned in college rather than the weird magic keywords of Coq.
This is a false equivalency that I see pop up pretty often. Like Use Types or Go Fast? Why are those the only options? Why does using types make you slower? If you're a slow typist then I suppose writing the types can take a little longer. Why is the comparison not Go Fast or Write Tests? A test suite with reasonable coverage is many times the amount of code that adding types takes.
Here's a great tool, https://quicktype.io/typescript . You can paste in JSON objects and it will spit out useful type definitions for your objects. The reality is that types exist in JavaScript and any other untyped language, they're just implicit. You have to read the code to know what they are. Then to help yourself or people who work with you, you will start writing examples either in the docs or in tests, and now you've informally specified your types. Or you don't do either then every time you or anyone else goes to edit a piece of code you have to read, understand, manually find all places you used that code and make sure you didn't break anything.
The purpose of a static type system is to find bugs, or issues with your code without even running it. The compiler will let you know if you make a change to the code which breaks the type you set. It can do a lot of the above mentioned work completely automatically.
You end up saving a lot of time not repeating work. One time working in python I had a problem that took me an hour to figure out. I had to look through a bunch of project code, then library code, and then I figured out that I just had put in the wrong shape of data. In a typed language it would have take me 30 seconds. The compiler would have complained and told me how I was wrong and then I would have fixed and moved on. At that moment I said "I'm getting too old for this shit", and then have never looked back from working with typed languages.
Secondly, TypeScript is not Java/C/C++. TypeScript has type inference and expressive type system. This means that you do not need to manually write the type for every single variable. Most you can omit because TypeScript is clever enough to figure it out.
Secondly, Structural typing is exactly how duck typing works in JavaScript and Python. Unlike those older languages you don't need to build huge class based hierarchies to make types that work in many situations. Define a minimal interface that you need for a function. Any object that has those properties will type check and work.
Check out Effective TypeScript, or Programming TypeScript. As a seasoned node developer I assure you that if you ever have teammates, types will help them contribute to a code base faster and with more confidence.
Studies of college students learning CS showed that students who built a consistent mental model of what the code was doing did considerably better in classes.
To that end when I was teaching students I would print out snippets of code and have them evaluate the code in their head/on paper and then have them run the code to see if there was anything wrong. Repeat this process until your mental model matches what the computer does.
Totally, 100% agree with this. I would even take it one step further, and say that there are really good tools for developing this mental model nowadays. I didn't really feel like I understood what code was doing until I used tools like chrome devtools, pythontutor.com, or algodaily.com to visualize and step through iteration. It's helpful to know what's happening at each line with the call stack, variables, references, etc. -- but it can be intimidating to start. Drawing it out on paper first might be a better way to begin.
I start all my server side projects in TypeScript lately. There is enough support that it is actually very easy to get started. ts-node, npm @types, and many packages natively supporting ts help.
The browser is a crazy environment and adds difficulty, but I find my server code can very strictly typed. The nodejs type definitions are good and if you pick an ORM library with good typescript support then both the in memory data structures and database objects can be well typed.
The build step with typescript is basically negated by ts-node for the server. Alternatively, by using tsc --watch and some clever indirection I've enabled hot reloading for most of my server code. So just to be clear, I have types helping me code using vs-code, I save and immediately see changes on the server.
If you know the tools well and how to set things up then TS + node can provide a better developer environment than many languages.
While I can understand and somewhat agree with his point that the works should be judged on their own merit. However, I find his attitude extremely callous. He even reiterated the point that even if the artist was an axe murderer he wouldn't care he just wants the goods.
It boils down to he's saying that the suffering of any of the victims doesn't matter to him. Literally at all... More over there is a pretty deep undercurrent that that has been the attitude for a long time and that the suffering of others has been ignored for equally long.
If you want justification for removing the works of the artists then consider it a form of ill-gotten gains. Would that work of art have been made if they're crime had been revealed or convicted?
Ok, let's go down this road. Suppose a crime is discovered long after the event. Does that mean you take their house? They probably wouldn't have gotten a job good enough to buy one. Their possessions? Gone. How about their family? Probably wouldn't have gotten married. Probably wouldn't have had those children. Erase erase erase!
Honestly, the response here is downright frightening, and I fear for our future...
The difference between all the things that you listed is that works of art are able to give royalties to a person. If you continue to buy or consume their products they still profit.
Obviously ex post facto law is bad for society. However, if an artist is receiving royalties for a work they made during which they raped several people, why should they still profit?
> Because it's the job of the justice system to mete out punishment, not the modern day equivalent of a lynch mob.
This should be so glaringly obvious.
A common problem when someone finishes serving their jail time as allotted by said justice system, the (much more low-key) lynch mob doesn't want to hire them just yet.
But what doesn't happen is this: the prisoner, by some stroke of luck, gets a job in a say a car factory, and suddenly everyone else in that factory should loose their job, and I'm a bad person for wanting to drive a car that the ex-felon worked on.
The difference is probably that the factory worker is not seen by the car buyer - we wouldn’t want to expose everyone’s mind to the terrible sight of an ex-felon would we?
Now all that being said, this is probably just a pendulum swing. It looks like for decades sexual assault was shielded in the media industry - me too is overall still a positive movement IMO, it’s just important to not letting it get too far (and I think those breaking forces are already acting).
One of the key problems, however, is that the justice system isn't doing that. Hence why you get consumer-level campaigns to apply pressure and punishments in other ways.
I imagine sex crimes to be really hard to proof. Because the difference between a completely legal act and one that is deeply wrong is the state of mind of two people at the time.
The justice system shouldn't convict someone if it can't be sure that the accuses really did the crime.
Exactly. The justice system has prisons, or fines. Looking for ways to hurt individuals on top of that is mob mentality. Oh he has a job, lets put pressure on the employer. Oh he has sponsors on social media - lets contact those.
In addition to “because it’s the job of the justice department to dole out punishment”: if an artist is receiving dividend on shares bought in a period during which they raped several people, should we take those dividends? The money they earned in a period in which they raped people?
That would be quite a deviation from what the justice system ‘we’ (in the western world, 21st century, …) agreed on typically do: only take the money people get from a crime (frequently with a fine added), not all their money.
(There may be edge cases, for example: if I steal a million, put all it on red in Vegas, come out with two million, and then get caught, how much money should be taken from me? I can see a judge ordering me to return a million to the owner of the original million and a million to the casino. Those are the exceptions, though)
If someone steals $400K from you, and you discover who it was 10 years later, are you not due at least $400K from that person even if it means liquidating their assets?
Don't build your future on the ashes of someone else's past.
He's not being extremely callous. He's just saying your opinion shouldn't be forced on him. The suffering of others doesn't need to be his problem. We can discourage that with prison and fines. No need to drag the consumer in on a forced march through some rabid vigilante social assassination.
Apply this logic (ill gotten gains is the term you used, but I interpret it as a coded way to say value created by immoral actors) to technology and it suddenly becomes a little more complicated.
The scary prospect, from my perspective, is that cultural erasure on moral grounds is not only possible, it could be inevitable and lead to a chain reaction. From the statue removal in the US (easily justifiable considering the circumstances of their placement) to the college course alteration and removal in certain South African universities (justifiable under Socially Just interpretations) to the discrediting and forced reinterpretation of scientific theory (IQ studies, intelligent design inclusion, inherent sex disparity, evolutionary genetics), it would appear there may in fact be a reduced friction gradient that isn't wholly fallacious. If some pernicious pedophile develops a cure for cancer, I'm not going to consider for even a second whether or not I am going to use it.
If some pernicious pedophile develops a cure for cancer, it would be morally wrong not to use it. However, if that particular pedophile should profit from it is an entirely separate question. Patents and copyrights are a government given right and they can be removed. Actions have consequences.
100%. Said pedophile's cure should be used far and wide. I am 100% certain inventions used widely today have been made by pedophiles.
If the person is convicted, their assets can be siezed and they can be imprisoned. This is not the same as allowing them to continue to benefit by refusing to prosecute, which is what happened in the past.
> His personal diaries reveal that his religious beliefs did not limit his sexual activity which included several extramarital affairs, incest with his two eldest teenage daughters, incestuous relationships with his sisters, and sexual acts on his dog.
i don't really think your pernicious pedophile is a good example of ill-gotten gains.
a crime lord who makes $10mm through illegal ventures has no claim to that money once they are convicted. the money was made illegitimately, so the government can just take it. your pedophile, on the other hand, has done one great thing and one terrible thing for/to society. I don't think that means it should be the purview of the patent office to punish them. instead, why not give them a fine proportional to the offense (ie huge) in addition to jail time and let them use most or all of the profits to pay it?
Without limit? Everyone has broken a law at some point.
Economic confiscations are supposed to take the proceeds of crime, not erase everything you've ever done and remove any chance of you earning again. Where is rehabilitation in your "justice"?
No point rehabilitating, or having a change of heart is there? May as well make the sentence for every crime or misdemeanour a whole life tariff.
The report specifically calls out Kraken as extremely suspicious. This is the excerpt.
"The OAG could not review the practices and procedures of non-participating platforms (Binance, Gate.io, Huobi, and Kraken) concerning manipulative or abusive trading. However, the Kraken platform’s public response is alarming. In announcing the company’s decision not to participate in the Initiative, Kraken declared that market manipulation “doesn’t matter to most crypto traders,” even while admitting that “scams are rampant” in the industry."
