memorysafety

Scientifically, it's cool of course, dependent linear types yaay.

Socially though, incompatible rewrite in Scheme should've been a separate project IMO; but since it's called "Idris 2", community attention faded away from the Haskell implementation "Idris 1". Which caused bad maintenance, neglect, stagnation, of a thing I tried and liked.

Similarly to SemVer, the good-faith grader attempts to convey a sizeable blob of knowledge... by compressing it into a one-dimensional number. No matter the scoring formula, this step is lossy.

On the receiving end of this communication, all you can do with the score is add a huge grain of salt to it, then perhaps use to prioritize your review queue. You still must check the details, and work out a judgement tailored to your specific context. There's no other way.

There isn't a choice for the grader either, to skip the obscenely lossy scoring step. Just like with release versions, they must do it, as the audience consists of unbounded number of engineers; faithfully doing it saves mountains of time for everyone involved (present and future).

Just like with dependency upgrades, it's the consumer's choice to disregard CVE scores (version numbers), vulnDB entries (changelogs), or even existence itself of a vulnerability (upgrade). Likewise, it's their fault if consequences arise.

Viewed thusly, can be seen: anecdotes of pointwise drama will continue (even when the bulk of activity chugs along happily, efficiently and quietly) -- because at the core of it, CVE ID's and scores are just that, a communication tool. It mostly can't make strangers exercise care or spend effort more than they're willing to. It can optimise utility of attention that they do pay.

Please notice, there needs to be some sort of verification mechanism. The russians have already figured out that simply setting "Ukraine" in profile data a) works b) might suffice to bypass the upcoming restriction.

I'd seen some; wishing I could unsee those.

* It seems that, as a species, we have deep issues rooted in our tribal upbringing. Reaching a global actionable consensus seems as hard (if not harder) as colonizing another planet. The internet only catalyzes the "us vs they" thinking people struggle to get rid of. In one of its many incarnations, it's a nurture of horribly mistaken worldviews — and here I imply climate change denialism, in context. But also flat earth, etc.

* Viewed independently from antropogenic climate change catastrophy -- living on another planet would be extraordinary achievement, would you disagree? Launching a "toy" helicopter is kinda cool, but... living? For some of our greatest ancestors, the coolest achievement has been building millenia-lasting megastructures. Our generations are building fusion testbeds, orbital telescopes & commsat constellations; why wouldn't, say, a giant Earth-shaped globe monument on Mars be great? Perhaps not a globe, yea... but a Statue Of Liberty? Dao temple maybe? A hammer-and-sickle impact crater giga-egraving? Whatever.

* Both viewed together, rationally, Mars colonization is an option to escape extinction on Earth. Not a priority, sure; more like, a backup-of-backup-of-backup plan -- for when all else failed (see point 1). It's not like we can do it soon, either; advance preparations and long practice needed. I won't express any judgement of viability. I do see, however, how ambition and inter-tribe competition can drive this plan to a ready state (see point 2) -- sooner than fossil fuel combustion stops across the world.

Note also, that destroying just the thin tender habitable layer of Earth would suffice.

Your reasoning is sound. But it won't be as bad. I'd claim, not much worse than dealing with leap seconds.

For 2 reasons: • Post-Quantum Cryptography exists. • The updated (quantum-resistant) Bitcoin will get renamed back to Bitcoin.

I agree your parent could use a review. I failed to read them any far.

I don't care if you hand-coded all those buckets of accessors, or your IDE has generated them -- that's irrelevant to that they're still overwhelmingly useless noise. Which I need to read through, which I need to review in PR diffs, skim in "find symbol usage" output, class interface outlines, javadocs, etc etc -- all that 10 as often as during writing. Somehow I'm expected to learn to ignore meaningless code, while producing it is fine?..

Remember the point made in "green languages, brown languages" recent post here on HN? The insight for me there was the source of "rewrite it from scratch" urge which should be very familiar to engineers working in the field. It comes from incomprehensible code or weak code reading skills. Either way, boilerplate does nothing but harm.

So no, while I agree on your point that code exists principally to be read by humans (and as a nice secondary bonus, executed by machines) -- I disagree that boilerplate is "fine" whatever its incarnation. It's not, because it directly damages the primary purpose of code: its readability.

Not unless you've taken a concrete definition for "a lot of people".

Even 1% of internet users is still a lot of people IMO. Like, on the order of tens of millions, right?.. That's bigger than whole countries.

Also keep in mind how outraging it feels to find yourself in that 1% that someone decided it was fine to ignore and discriminate against the mainstream. We all been there.

In that case, it's presumed it was indeed a massive extinction (but no data to quantify any % over, due to no microbial fossils preserved).

... But for a different reason. It wasn't due to decrease in oxygen levels; contrary to that. At that time, oxygen was being first ever introduced into the atmosphere. This has left a unique geological trace we observe everywhere across the planet: the white sedimentary + red rust striped 2 Ga rocks.

The "microbes" were the first photosynthesisers. The oxygen was a toxic byproduct. Resistance to it had to be learned by evolution, and that learning took ~1e8 years. Many of life didn't manage to and went extinct.

"Cultural differences" is an easy scapegoat.