greenpeas

Oh, I missed that. I guess it's alright then. I thought they chose this particular example to "showcase" Tcl by comparison.

  #!/usr/bin/env tclsh
  
  puts $argv

I kinda wanted to stop reading after this example. It feels dishonest to start with an example for which there is a builtin. Why didn't you show instead how to output arguments joined by a comma or some other separator instead of space. If I were to update the Go or Python examples to use another separator, it'd be just a 1-2 character change, whereas for Tcl I have no idea how that would look.

Initial Coin Offering

> I don’t consider email to be a legal form of communication.

The flipside of requiring a provider to submit paperwork to terminate your service, is the situation where in order to setup a new server with DO you'd have to file paperwork yourself. Can you imagine sending a paper letter every time you need to spin up a VM?

Which one do you prefer? paperwork in both directions or no paperwork?

How do you deal with customers that don't reply to email notifications and don't have a phone number on file?

I can appreciate how terrible must have been to suddenly find all your servers shut down, and I understand how easy it is to set up billing and forget, especially with the day to day stress of running a startup, but what would you have done if you were DO?

> our site was offline because of DO.

Or maybe it's because of the bank that expired your credit card?

> the first 90% takes 10% of the time, the last 10% takes 90%.

Is the second part of that statement necessary?

This is really cool! Could you please add a keyboard shortcut for focusing the input field? (perhaps a forward slash '/' like on Youtube or Github)

Sometimes I know that a precise word for what I want to say exists, and I'll know it when I see it, but I can't quite remember it in the moment. In those cases I search thesaurus for synonyms to related words; or maybe ask ChatGPT these days.

FIY, you can write `data4.all?(Integer)` because `all?` can take a pattern instead of a block, and it uses the === (just like case...when)

I just learned this myself from another comment in this thread.

UPD: why do you write `obj.<=(16)` instead of `obj <= 16`? is this a performance thing or a matter of style or something else?

That's likely because the pattern matching usage was a late addition to the article (wasn't planned from the start)

> but without an attached probability there isn't much to learn.

But there is an attached probability implicitly. I can make some common sense assumptions about the number of people that have ever done LSD and get a lower bound on the risk (with a huge confidence interval, but still). Of course a chance of say 1 in ten millions is really small, but if the perceived benefits of doing LSD are also small, then that might be enough for me to make up my mind.

> Frankly, some of the symptoms the author experienced are typical of HPPD, and some are not. Correlation isn't causation, and one datapoint absolutely does not show so much as correlation.

This is a good point, I have to decide for myself whether that person is trustworthy or not, and whether their experience is relevant to my case. But if I decide that I can trust their evidence, then I'm going to factor it into my decision, even if it's only one datapoint. If in the future a controlled study on the risks of doing LSD gets published, I can reevaluate my position then.

> You almost certainly partake in activities with a chance to go far more wrong every day! In fact, if the mere possibility of something going wrong is enough to dissuade you, then you shouldn't have needed the article in the first place- there's always a chance things could go horribly wrong!

Yes, I partake in many activities that have a nonzero chance of harming me temporarily or permanently. But with each of those activities, I've decided that the potential benefits outweigh the risks. And mind you, I did not need to read extensive studies with attached probabilities do decide that crossing the road or swimming in the sea is worth the risks.

This touches on another disagreement I have with your original response. We don't live our lives constantly evaluating the risks based on peer reviewed studies with attached probabilities. We rely on common sense and our lived experiences as well as other people's experience that we learn about. The plural of anecdote is not data, but together with a healthy dose of common sense, it can provide acceptable heuristics for evaluating risks and making decisions.