I was one of these "smart students" but it really wasn't that I did not want to be there. I was a lazy, or complacent, f*ck. I've have had to learn how to learn and how to have discipline late(r) in life.
This is again conflating at least two things and this is so prevalent in this context. Let us not conflate how annoying DRM:s are to us users that buy the things, with pirates thinking they somehow have a right to use any software without paying fairly for it. I would even go as far as to say that you pirates are the reason I have to have a DRM in the shit I bought and paid for.
> I would even go as far as to say that you pirates are the reason I have to have a DRM
I think this is largely an incorrect take. DRM is anti consumer, not anti piracy. In fact, it has done very little to deter actual piracy (and remember it only takes ONE person to break the DRM), while affecting some casual pirates and all legitimate users. In the process, they got rid of reselling stuff you own.
It's anticonsumer, not antipiracy, never forget that. It means something like this would have happened regardless of pirates.
They succesfully did away with 2nd hand markets and the concept of "owning" anything. So yes, I would imagine DRM would continue to exist without piracy.
I think so, because their main goal is to prevent unwanted use of the digital product -- to the detriment of end users -- in more ways than just piracy. In fact, they don't solve the piracy issue.
I am not sure how I am conflating two things, it would be helpful if you could expand or connect to my argument. Perhaps I am misunderstanding.
My argument is that the grant of monopoly is a regulatory decision and the real cause of "winning". No amount of DRM would confer the same benefit because the ability to bypass it through piracy would be totally legal with no economic or other consequences and so a robust cracking and distribution ecosystem would emerge. Thats a drastically different story than when napster gets shut down, and limewire gets shut down and pirate bay gets shut down every time it relaunches. Imagine a world where there is are 1000 pirate bays
Piracy is as easy now as it was pre-DRM. DRM is the digital equivalent to security screws on electronics, in that they’re a mechanism for lawyers to argue their client made an attempt despite being easily bypassed with a trivial amount of effort.
Exactly this. The real power is in the regulatory grant of a monopoly that comes with rights like the ability to sue for damages, issue take down notices etc. the DRM does allow restrictions on distribution because many people can’t be bothered to remove them, but more importantly the act of removing them is evidence of the intent to knowingly violate the copyright which might be harder to prove otherwise
I don't think I can agree with you here because a lot of these things that people know but that is supposedly hard to dress in words, is very often just positions that someone holds arbitrarily, so is difficult to impossible to explain. The positions do not have explanations because they are not held for good reason.
I say this as someone with 3 decades of professional experience. That does not make me right, please do tell me that I am in fact wrong! It does mean that I might be one of these guys with positions that should be challenged, however.
You know what? I welcome this. Explain to me why I am wrong, let's do it your way, dear youngin!
What do you mean by "same people"? Who are these people? The comment you're responding to certainly doesn't specify, but somehow you know that they're the same as the people who said whatever batshit thing you think they said.
I'm prepared to be wrong though. I searched the internet for six whole minutes and found no evidence of even a single person, let alone the group of people you say exist.
Haven’t gotten around to get myself a car yet, but I did have one of those electric scooters (2x900W motors I think, up to 50-60km/h depending on the climb) along with full gear (from moto shoes, gloves, and a helmet, to kevlar pants and an armored jacket). We had “roads” for bicycles and stuff like that, heavily isolated from regular traffic, and maybe having 1-2 people every 500-1000m.
I very often went on a baked circuit there, not as a “let’s get a faster lap time”, but more of a “clear my mind” type of ride. For things like this, I definitely prefer to be baked simply because of how it weirdly helped me disconnect from everything else going on in my life, focusing only on the about 15-20km of quiet, nature-adjacent, 95% empty, smooth bike road.
When I took the same scooter out to ride within traffic (akin to a motorbike, following all traffic rules aside from “vehicle registration” and “a license” because these weren’t and AFAIK still aren’t feasible for these), it was a whole different story. What riding with cannabis showed me was that you need to have trust in both yourself and your surroundings. But riding in traffic, sharing the road with people that aren’t even used to seeing motorbikes on the road that often (let alone electric scooters sharing the road with cars), being baked definitely made things more stressful than it would have needed to be.
I had to do so once and I found it very unpleasant. I was aware the whole time that I should not be driving. (I was also full of adrenaline and stress, which are confounding factors, but I'd driven under similarly stressed conditions and being high made it much more unpleasant.)
LOL
Hell,no: Its fucking boring! You have to look at the street, manouvre a quite complex vehicle correctly, listen to neighbour seat etc. - this is energy exausting, no energy providing :-D
Ah F#, my greatest love. How I wish the C# guys and girls would see this instead of further bastardizing (don't hate me) C# into being everything but poorly.
Don't you see that if you would use F# instead, creating projects with C# and F#, that you would get what is being added to C# but actually working and ergonomically? Interop is great!
It's a shame though that if you come from the world of OCaml, F# feels like its stuck in C#'s shadow a bit. You can get pretty far with F# by using it as a functional language, but eventually you'll want to interop with the rest of the .NET ecosystem and suddenly you're writing in a weird OOP/Functional hybrid style.
OCaml is wonderful too but having written F# for different companies for years, my code is pretty much never that hybrid stuff. Sure, .NET:s weird asynch apis, sometimes the code comes out a little bit weird but that is the exception to the rule imho.
F# is so elegant and terse for writing functional-style wrappers around OO code packages! Unfortunately, you find yourself needing to write functional-style wrappers around OO code packages.
It really isn't. Having worked for several decades on "both sides", this really is my experience. The functional side is better typed and has fewer side effects of this kind. It is more normal, as in more common, to have code work correctly as soon as it compiles. This is my lived experience having worked with Java, Scala, F# and Rust since 1999.
You have a good point there, that is better. But it is still, well honestly, wrong. Two orders ordered at different times are just not the same order, and using a typeclass approach to say that they most definitely are is going to bite you in the back seat.
PartialEq and Eq for PizzaDetails is good. If there is a business function that computes whether or not someone orders the same thing, then that should start by projecting the details.
Yeah, I immediately twitched when I saw the PartialEq implementation. Somebody is going to write code which finds the "correct" order and ends up allowing someone to order the same pizza but get yours, while you have to wait for it to be made and cooked again.
It's not difficult to write the predicate same_details_as() and then it's obvious to reviewers if that's what we meant and discourages weird ad-hoc code which might stop working when the PizzaDetails is redefined.
I do agree that implementing PartialEq on orders in this way is a bad fit. But it is a synthetic example to make a point, so I tried to keep it in the spirit of the original article (while ironically picking nits in the same vein myself).
> But it is still, well honestly, wrong. Two orders ordered at different times are just not the same order
I probably don't have enough context but whatever identity makes up "your order" goes in the PizzaOrder and not the PizzaDetails. The delivery address, for example, goes in the PizzaOrder.
I think that a big problem here is the fact that in OOP, everything is an object, i.e.: a class. And if all you have is a hammer, then .... But it is much better to picture the model, controller and the view as emergent. But implementing this in OOP is too challenging because some things in either of those three domains are going to be a process, or a piece of state or a role, etc.
And in implementing some process, what is it? As in: what is its encoding in $language and where does it go?
So you end up with the local stamp collectors in the office and get into an argument of: it is part of the model, so should be in the Model class. "Process, nah, that is totally a controller aspect. It does something." etc.
You both have good points. But there is monads the mathematical and programmatic concept, and there is also something a little bit handwavy in how these things are incorporated into an application architecture. The latter is what is being used on the one hand in comparison to MVC, etc, on the other.
I.e.: a monadic architecture in Haskell is good, but one in Java is going to suck. A sort of half-way point is in The Elm Architecture, which is a sort of deconstructed IO monad.
(Writing this as someone with decades of experience in writing monadic architectures.)
> I am going to interpret your question as one asked in good spirit.
Thanks. It was.
> I like this book
I have that book, but I haven't read it. Which part specifically should I look at to understand what you mean by "monadic architecture"? Or do I need to read the entire book first? I'm searching through that book right now, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't mention "monadic architecture" even once.
That doesn't really tell me anything though. I use monads, and applicatives, and functors, and monoids, semigroups, etc…
When you use Hakyll to generate a static site, you use a bunch of monads. But is a Hakyll site a "monadic architecture"? I'm not quite sure how I'd describe it as an architecture — it's really just an imperative program. It's to some degree a bit like a Makefile.
A Yesod application on the other hand I would readily describe as MVC, and yet it's all monads all over the place.
What about something like The Elm Architecture? Elm provides a bunch of monads (not directly as an abstraction, but through a few specific instances) but its architecture I would describe as perhaps FRP, or unidirectional data flow state machine kinda thing.
So that's three examples with clearly distinct architectures, and all three are architectures that "consist of monads".
So, I don't really understand what "monadic architecture" means.
I don’t really understand what a “monadic architecture” is supposed to mean.
Haskell’s `Monad` type class is hardly the only possible encoding of a monad. They’re just a simple mathematical construction with useful properties, and — like functors and applicative functors — they emerge everywhere.
See, I don't think you don't really understand my point. I said this elsewhere: I have been programming Scala and Haskell for more than 15 years, which I am sure you have as well. This is not ment as a proof of my point as that would be arguing form authority. This is not my intention. But there are more things at play here.
What I think you are doing is: well quantum mechanics is just simple mathematical construction and some artithmetic.
reply