kchamplewski

How does this in any way reflect on either the privacy of DuckDuckGo (I don't think they ever claimed or even vaguely implied that if I search for, say, Banana, no one else will be able to see the results page for Banana, as that would be absurd), or Google, who are simply indexing publicly accessible pages, which is what they've always done since coming into existence.

What violation of privacy or hint thereof is happening here?

> when you can't toss a printf debug or log statement into a function without changing function signatures all the way up

But you absolutely _can_ do this in Haskell.

Sure, it's considered very unsafe and shouldn't be used in production, but for printf debugging it's fine.

Admittedly, production-ready logging requires type signature modification, but if you subscribe to Haskell's idea that side-effects should be reflected in type signatures, then I don't see that as excessive.

That depends heavily on where you live. If the most common type of power outage is one that affects a small region, it's quite likely internet connectivity could remain unaffected. I had this experience in northern Sweden, where I had a couple of power interruptions but zero network interruption.

> DUI

Is illegal and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that.

> Liver disease

That's harming you, not someone else. If the state pays for the healthcare requirements that then arise then a more nuanced argument can be made, but surely if it's your own liver and you pay for healthcare then you're harming no one else.

> Domestic violence

Once again, already illegal and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that.

What advantages would it give them though?

It's no faster than any existing means of communication since you still need to send classical information along with the quantum, though I guess it's nice that it can be used for almost completely unbreakable encryption.

It feels like complete overkill for no practical advantage that I can see.

Photographers don't automatically gain copyright of a photo by virtue of it being a photo - they gain copyright when they create what the law considers a copyrightable work.

In practice, most photos involve creating or capturing a scene in a unique or new way, and this adds something new sufficient to make the photograph a new work and hence subject to copyright.

The act of photographing a public domain painting in such a way that you just reproduce the painting and add nothing new, however, doesn't necessarily create a new work - it may instead count as a reproduction of that original work and hence subject to the original work's copyright, as no new copyrightable material is added.

There is a bit of a grey area in that if I say, arrange a whole bunch of public domain art in a particular way and photograph it, I could quite reasonably argue that my arrangement itself consists of a work and so my photographs are subject to copyright. Similarly if I parody or otherwise transform a public domain work, I can assert that my work is copyrightable as it is transformative. This 3D scan doesn't fall into this area however since the scan was clearly intended to reproduce the original work, as opposed to create a new copyrightable work.

As I understand it the reasoning given tends to be that ad auctions happen extremely quickly, and therefore too quickly to check some single source of truth for your current budget.

Therefore, the budget is only "eventually consistent" - i.e. at the end of the campaign or after a day or so, the number you're being charged is accurate. However during the campaign itself it's not possible to guarantee that things won't go slightly over budget as each individual ad auction cannot feasibly check the central budget.

That said, it definitely feels like there should be a way to implement this such that it backs off as the budget is approached, so that overshoots are likely to be minor, rather than 100% of the budget as apparently happens on a regular basis.

> TypeScript doesn't count because all type information is stripped during runtime

What's the point of keeping this information around at runtime if you do all your type checks at compile time?

Based on this categorisation, Haskell for example isn't a strongly typed language, and yet Haskell's type checking is one of its biggest selling points, so this doesn't seem quite right.

A firewalled IP would be much more appropriate, and NAT is not a firewall or a security mechanism.

C-style languages tend to have squiggly brackets which can limit scope somewhat, but not as totally as you describe.

For example:

   doThing(){
      x = 7; //x visible in whole function
      {
         y = x*2; //y only visible in this block.
      }
      // x still visible, y no longer visible
   }

Explicitly removing things from scope doesn't seem to be a feature though.

The fact that the math here is wrong is quite concerning. Probabilities are not additive - 1 in 6 dice rolls will produce a 5, it doesn't mean if I roll 6 times I am guaranteed a 5.

> It could choose to decode, rotate, re-encode

Or it could simply rotate without decoding or re-encoding, which has the added advantage of being lossless.

Obviously it's still added processing time and (probably more importantly) development time, so it's generally not worth bothering, however it's important to point out that JPEG rotation can (in the case of 90 degree increments) be done losslessly.

Except async communication doesn't disrupt deep flow if done properly since it should be simply ignored until flow breaks or pauses naturally.

A slack message won't disrupt my deep work because I'll have notifications turned off, unless it's extremely urgent in which case it would be too urgent to leave until a standup anyway.