spaethnl

The type soft-enforces₁ it immediately for everyone though.

Without the type there are a few possibilities: 1. I could forget the assertion and have buggy code without realizing. 2. I could ensure that all uses do the assertion. Even if we can statically know that it is empty. This costs us the check for every call of the function, and ends up being more code.

Alternatively I could statically know in advance. The code won't let me `Array.pop` because that is invalid, so:

  1. I *cannot* make that mistake
  2. It cost no runtime performance
  3. It cost no extra code in a function

1: I say soft-enforce because if someone were to pass a value incorrectly cast as NonEmpty, it would still have a runtime error, but that is a bug elsewhere, not here.

That 2nd one being a bug is exactly what the type system and NonEmpty types is designed to help prevent.

It isn't a case of wanting to implement the world to do this though.

Instead, it is a case of the active users of the library saying, "Wow, the Effect way of doing this is so much nicer, can we have everything this way please?"

The types allow you to very narrowly define functions so that you can, for example, require that a NonEmptyArray be passed. This helps to fulfill that requirement without casts.

This is super useful though. It allows you to swap out implementations for things like logging and monitoring. Not sure what the confusion is here.

How is that LVT "rent" different from any other traditional property tax being "rent"?

As near as I can tell, it is just a different way of deciding how the property tax burden is levied.

Downtown property gets taxed much more. Un-developed speculation property that doesn't contribute to the community (and derives value from other people's contributions) get taxed at the same rate as nearby developed property.

What you are saying is Russian propaganda.

Nearly every country that has been attacked has forced conscription. The US did during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and we weren't even attacked in 3 of those.

Were we authoritarian then?

Out of curiosity, what cost do you believe that you currently personally bear for this?

Before the node-size race we also had the clock-speed race. Eventually it was common for processors reach 2-4ghz, and after that the clock speed gains stopped being practical because as you increase clock speed you also increase energy requirements and heat.

I think the implication is that clock-speed could start increasing again. It would probably require a completely new manufacturing process, but if we assume this superconductor is legit, perhaps an older process could manufacture it.

If so, maybe we could have (just spitballing here, I have no idea) 28nm super conducting CPUs that run at a 1thz instead of 4ghz. That would be quite an improvement over today's CPUs, even with fewer transistors, I think.

There are other losses and limitation in increasing clock-speeds aside from just resistive losses, but I think they are a significant part of the current bottleneck. Other losses involve transistor switching losses, and inductive losses but I don't really know the details, and I think those details change with superconductors.

I suspect it does matter because the inability to understand arithmetic likely effects higher level learning. For example, If you want it to learn statistics, it likely needs a good understanding of arithmetic.

All tasks that rely on it will perform worse than expected.

Who is "they"?

You dismiss the "strongtowns" argument as if there is some consensus that it has been debunked, but I don't think there is such a consensus, so you'd need to support that claim.

Further, the worst case is not that property taxes increase, it is that other people, usually less fortunate, end up subsidizing them further through federal, state, and county funds, rather than their own local taxes.

Sure, but that isn't what we're talking about.

The comment that this thread branched off of is about the relative difference in danger of 10mph with a modern vehicle, not 20, 30, or 40mph. I don't think I agree with that user's overall point, but I also didn't think your response to it was particularly on point either.

I think our transportation infrastructure needs a massive overhaul to be more pedestrian, bike, and even motor-vehicle friendly, but I think speeds limits are such a poor answer to that problem that arguing about +10mph is merely a distraction.