Last I knew, Rider was pretty much the only IDE available for a large codebase when you weren't on Windows. Much love for Ionide, but it was a serious struggle.
VS Code with Ionide is okay but has many limitations for example in debugging or lack of support for F# fsi scripts.
If you’re serious about F#, investing in Rider or Visual Studio makes a lot of sense.
Having said that I wrote a Neo4J data extraction tool a few months ago and chose to write it in F#. At one point I observed how funny it was that I was developing in a Microsoft language and yet my dev workstation runs Fedora and my IDE comes from JetBrains and my code is running in kubernetes on a Linux cluster and there is not a sight of a windows machine in this whole pipeline.
I remember the days when the language, linker, compiler, IDE, the GUI components, everything was tied together. If you wanted the next version of VB you had to buy the new version of Visual Studio!
I think I agree with you. When I was part of a growing F# team a number of years ago, everyone we hired was an enthusiast who just loved coding in F# and wanted an opportunity to do it professionally. It turned out that this love, combined with the constraints of the language, led to a super-clean and legible code base. The quality was (in my estimation) outstanding, and I was sad to leave it.
I'm at my current company (actually writing mostly typescript and node services now) because of a YC "who's hiring" post that mentioned F# positions (bait and switch /s, but my experience lined up heavily with the team I ended up joining which didn't use F#).
For a great sci-fi treatment of the dangers of mirror life, see Fantastic Four 5-6 (2023) by Ryan North. Yes, that Ryan North, and no, it's not your "typical" comic book.
Perfection for Leibniz might be considered more of a logical concept than an observable state. After all, he uses the same thing to argue (somehow) for the existence of god! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#ExiGod
This leads to some strange conclusions about perfection that aren't intuitive, and sometimes seem monstous.
I’m reminded of Pythagorean philosophies of harmony that quickly reveal the imperfections inherent to math, ie right triangle with two sides of one unit producing square root of two or Pythagorean tuning which is so perfect it is imperfect (eg the wolf fifth)
Would you kindly clarify your point? A supreme court justice is not a state or local official (as I understand the terms), so the ruling won't protect him.
The point is that the justices own histories with respect to expensive gifts is naturally going to shape their senses of what kinds of gifts are normal, problematic, unusual, etc.— as are the general norms of their peers (professionally and/or socioeconomically). And our judges are quite accustomed to receiving extremely expensive gifts basically all the time.
Circuit judges, DAs, all kinds of folks lower on the ladder than him could tell you unequivocally they are. Far less counts.
Anyone in corporate America who’s done anti-corruption training could tell you. Millions and millions of people.
He had a staff he could ask to check for him if he were actually uncertain (and there’s zero chance he was sure they weren’t gifts). A staff he doesn’t even pay for. If he wasn’t sure and didn’t do that, guess what? He really knew the answer.
I’m a government contractor. Every year I take a training course on just this topic. If I don’t take the course, my direct supervisor will personally ensure that I do.
I may not accept gifts from anyone that I (or my spouse) have business with, or might have business with, as part of my job. The dollar threshold used to be $10. They raised it a few years ago to $25. So now I can accept a coffee mug from SpaceX, but probably not a polo shirt.
If I have any questions, there is an ethics office that I can (must) talk to about whatever situation arises.
This setup is pretty common for people who are paid by the government, and it was instated for very good reasons that we’re all aware of.
I have nothing but contempt for this behavior on the part of Clarence Thomas. He is so far over the line. It’s outrageous.
Yes, using the everyday definition of "gift." Is it an improper gift? Depends on what your professional relationship is with your friend and their family. Must you report it? That's a legal question that depends on a lot of things.
Friends giving gifts is usually fine and a positive aspect of friendship. But, in the case of Supreme Court justices, we've decided they need to record and publish these gifts. That way, Congress and the public can decide if their rulings were affected by "gifts." For example, South Korea's Supreme Court flew Ruth Bader Ginsberg over for $8000. That was probably more of a "professional networking and learning" gift. But if somebody with a connection to South Korea's government had a case before the court, then we could've pressured RBG to sit that case out.
Depends on the details. My spouse was a local elected official in California, which has significant gift reporting requirements for those who hold local or state office (not federal office holders though). Staying at a friend's ranch, would likely fall under a limited gift exception [1], and would not usually be reportable:
> 1. Home Hospitality. Gifts of hospitality including food, drink or occasional lodging that an official
receives in an individual’s home when the individual or a member of their family is present. (Regulation
18942(a)(7).) Such hospitality provided by a lobbyist is a gift unless the home hospitality is related to
another purpose unconnected with the lobbyist’s professional activities. Generally, this means functions
like children’s birthday parties, soccer team parties, neighborhood barbeques, etc., where other guests
attend who are not part of the lobbying process. (Regulation 18942.2.)
or if the friend were not present, it may fall under this one...
> 6. Long-Time Friend. Benefits received from a long-time personal friend where the gift is unrelated to the
official’s duties. The exception does not apply if the individual providing the benefit to the official is
involved in some manner with business before the official. (Regulation 18942(a)(18)(C).) This exception
does not apply if the person providing the benefit to the official is an individual who otherwise has
business before the official as set forth in Regulation 18942(a)(18)(D).
Note that long-time friend is more restrictive than home hospitality while a family member is present. I would interpret this to mean that if your family friend has business related to your official position, you wouldn't need to report the stay if they were there, but if you stayed at their ranch while they weren't there, you would. Either way, if they had business with your position, I'd avoid the stay --- but my spouse was in a very limited scope office, so other than neighbors, nobody we knew had any reason to be involved in official business.
Did you pay? If not, then it was obviously a gift. One most people would understand as a particularly generous and intimate gift, at that, and one often given with an explicit eye to its financial value.
If you are in charge of procurement at your company, now go ahead and give your family friend preferential treatment for some contract. If you are a judge, now go ahead and write a ruling that favors them, directly or indirectly.
You are not wrong. This ruling mostly just harmonizes the law as it applies to federal and non federal officials.
> The high court has long held that criminal laws restricting “illegal gratuities” to federal officials require proof that the gifts were given for a specific “official act,” not just because of the official’s position.
It's a shame you're being downvoted because you make a fine point - Thomas' ethics aren't really at issue w.r.t. the ruling here, since it applies to local officials and not people in the federal government.
Is a local official accepting a bribe inherently better than a federal official?
If you were in the spotlight for your alleged corruption at the federal level, I would have a hard time considering you an objective judge of corruption at other levels of government.
I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of bribes for either local or federal officers - just that this particular ruling is not related (directly/legally) to the actions of the Supreme Court justices themselves.
It's a matter of optics and reflects the growing concern and distrust of the supreme Court in the current political US climate.
Justices are in the spotlight for improper and unreported gifts.
Anyone that's been in a large Corp knows a bit of bribing because of the yearly training you have to take.
The fact they brushed it off as nothing to worry about and now start to make changes that loose regulations is very concerning. Even if these changes don't affect them directly.
It makes his grifting look and be less bad. It matters legally, as precedent is a big part of US law, and in PR, as he can claim it is not bribery because he has now defined it to not be.
This is quite a common remark when it comes to Javascript. I rarely see the same being made about Rust libs, which also rely heavily on external dependencies.
Justifiably! Supply-chain attacks have occurred via npm, and have been widely reported. A lack of oversight and lack of standard libraries are often cited as the cause.
I don't know if it's a problem for Rust (or other platforms like Python, .NET, or Java afaik).
As someone who primarily writes TypeScript to run in browsers and on node.js, this kind of threat requires an extra level of vigilence, and often nudges me toward writing my own things rather than importing them.
There is still something to be said for "real world uniqueness" (GIS coordinates) or deferring to a third party to establish identity (license plate numbers).
Identifiers like these aren't always available, but within many domains will be sufficient.
The idea here is not that these keys can't be somehow "invalid," but rather that it isn't our system's problem -- it belongs to some other authority.
TFA author cites many examples from human-oriented systems, which perhaps are more common and traditional domains for RDBMS design, where there often several layers of exceptions to the rules - his argument that synthetic keys work well for these domains lands.
I personally work far more with computer-oriented systems and their data, and natural keys work well for me. When well-chosen they allow me to do an initial load of the source data for analysis, and then aggregate such databases together later on for historical analysis without fear of conflict. The data are often immutable in these domains, too.
Is this any better now?