The problem is a Faraday box only attenuates signals. And it usually does not attenuate all frequencies identically.
So your test may seem successful, but the box not be enough closer to a tower, or if your neighbor added a new AP, or if cell phone frequencies changed since you bought and tested it. Moreover, if you have to open and close it often, you have to be careful that the attenuation doesn't degrade.
All that to say that the "Faraday box solution" would mean testing it regularly with professional instruments and all that. It is far simpler and cheaper to ask guests to leave their phones in their cars.
Car keys usually use a wavelength of 1 meter; networking on your phone is going to be typically shorter than 15cm (though varies widely based on geographic region and carrier). A faraday box for your phone might not work for your car keys.
You won't be able to leverage C#'s pattern-matching effectively with a library.
Really though, you don't need a library to do sum-types in C#:
It's best to just use records for now:
public abstract record Maybe<A>
{
private Maybe() { }
public sealed record Just(A Value) : Maybe<A>;
public sealed record Nothing : Maybe<A>;
}
The private constructor and sealed case-types stops anybody else deriving from `Maybe<A>`, so the type is effectively closed and finite.
You can then construct like so:
var mx = new Maybe<int>.Just(123);
var my = new Maybe<int>.Nothing();
Then you can use the pattern-matching:
var r = mx switch
{
Maybe<int>.Just (var x) => x,
Maybe<int>.Nothing => 0
};
Of course, we don't get exhaustiveness checking, that'll have to wait for the proper sum-types (although the compiler does some pretty good work on this right now); but until then this is the most expressive and powerful way of doing sum-types in C#.
And, if you want a load of pre-built ones, then my library language-ext will help [1]
It's not a bad idea to evaluate OneOf. This proposal relies on records, so every use instance requires heap allocations and dereferencing which has memory and time implications respectively.
I implemented my own option types entirely differently via ref structs where the "non-option" becomes either a default of a value type or a null reference (size of a pointer). Then (in theory) the overhead is reduced to a single dereference with everything else being stack-allocated.
I then built the same thing as a non ref (regular) struct version for storing in a field. So I have Options.Quick and Options.Long namespaces with practically the same struct design just the former is a ref struct.
This has served me very well, is very fast. It just doesn't have the exhaustive checking and risks derefing a null reference, but in practice is not a big issue.
if(option.IsT1){ doSomething(option.ValueT1)};
if(option.IsT1){doSomething(option.ValueT2)}; // this would throw an exception, i.e. a bug, but its very readable to catch the bug
There is no timeframe right now. At the moment this is a loose proposal for how to approach union like features in C#. There are a lot more details to dig into here before we'd be ready to move to scheduling and implementation. Also need to decide if we take on all of the union variants proposed or just some and what priority order to approach them.
The linked says "Proposed, Prototype: Not Started, Implementation: Not Started, Specification: Not Started"
.NET releases are every November, and I would be very surprised to see this in November 2024. More likely November 2025 at soonest. But check back to that page later.
Definitely no way for Nov 2024 since they're already no longer merging features for that release. Considering the scope of this, I'm doubtful for next year as well. .NET takes their time with features to get them right as well. They don't seem to take as long as Java, but maybe most new features are also not as widely publicized.
Says who? Thinking you can die and being afraid of it is simply electrical impulses in your brain. No more or less valid than electrical impulses in a computation.
Sorry but if you step on a hose and the water stops running, that doesn't mean the hose was the source of the water
The materialist worldview is a fair null hypothesis, but it is not mutually exclusive with some higher-order thing we haven't discovered yet
You seem influenced by Dennett's ideas on consciousness. Not all of us are willing to accept that consciousness is 100% an illusion. Seems like gaslighting to me.
I remember reading part of a study a few years ago that noted that youtube was the only social media (in the study) that didn't negatively affect mental health. In fact it had a slight positive impact.
To be fair youtube is not really social media in traditional sense. It's more of a content delivery platform. It's not a place where you go to watch pixtures from your friends holiday or political hot takes but more traditional entertainment.
It's funny how closely early YouTube resembles TikTok in the 'average people singing, dancing, vlogging, being funny in front of the webcam' type of video that's entirely missing from modern YouTube (the webcam having been seamlessly replaced by the front-facing phone camera).
Even the median length was similar, around 30 seconds, and the video responses feature for replying to one video with another certainly looks familiar. We can look back at exactly how it was in the Wayback Machine: here's a random snapshot of the 'Most Recent' page from 2006.[1] Remember the stereotypical TikTok feed full of dancing girls?
We can't get the past internet back, of course, but this realization really made me see TikTok in a different way. (though YouTube's propensity for recommending decade-old videos ought to be noted with regard to this--a social media site willing to show you some of its oldest content, that's rare!)
Yeah definitely agreed. I was talking about "The impact isn't massive just on mental health, but also on general productivity and people's social lives. It's just way too addicting" so moreso general productivity as opposed to mental health. That's why I highlighted that part in my comment.
I don't know who this Mearsheimer is, but your comment is essentially ad hominem because you haven't addressed the point. If it helps you, the same thing has been said by others e.g. Chomsky.
Could South Africa join NATO? Thailand? Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected.
> Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected.
"In 1991, as the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russian president Boris Yeltsin sent a letter to NATO, suggesting that Russia's long-term aim was to join NATO."
South Africa or Thailand are not in the area covered by the treaty so no. Hell even an attack in Hawaii would be outside the treaty according the the US department of defense.
This is also why Australia and New Zealand are not part of NATO.
> Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected.
Except they were not. They were told to apply like any other nation and they did and were in the program but their constant threatening (and actual use) of force against their various neighbor countries slowed and eventually stopped the process with a final severing of official relationships due to the invasion of Crimea in 2014. Again the treaty is quite clear in this as a requirement to join nato.
That was their position once NATO had expanded eastward.
Here's an extract from a NATO report[0] in 2000. The whole chapter is genuinely worth a read:
> Nevertheless, in August 1994, Boris Yeltsin again said to the reporters, that Russia could join NATO in due course. Then, during 6-7 years, this question was not raised by the Russian political elite and the mass media. The main reason for that was NATO’s expansion to the East...
Russia actually has a long history of wanting to join [1]
"You talked about Putin targeting civilians, or the Russians targeting civilians. It’s obviously very hard to tell what’s exactly happened here."
This was just four days ago, in a closing rebuttal to another speaker, during a panel hosted by Katrina vanden Heuvel - yeah I'm thinking the civilians shot in the head with hands tied behind their backs show he is no real authority: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/11/world/europe/...
>‘They shot my son. I was next to him. It would be better if it had been me.’
>Russian soldiers set up in this school. A sniper in a high-rise fired at anybody who moved. Other soldiers tortured, raped and executed civilians in basements or backyards.
>A mother killed by a sniper while walking with her family to fetch a thermos of tea. A woman held as a sex slave, naked except for a fur coat and locked in a potato cellar before being executed. Two sisters dead in their home, their bodies left slumped on the floor for weeks.
The national lottery in the UK sends about 25% of the money to charities, so for some it's a form of charitable giving. Also what the other commenter said about dreaming.
It would be four times as effective to just donate all of the lottery entry money directly to charity—and it wouldn't even measurably affect your chances of winning.
When I visited Morocco I discovered that haggling is seen as an intrinsic part of a transaction. A lot of tourists aren't used to haggling or are afraid to do so out of a perceived risk of offending the seller. But if you don't haggle Moroccans will perceive you as weak, even if you think you've got a great deal paying face value.
I was given a fresh copy of Windows at work the other week and had to install all tooling afresh. I decided to take the opportunity to try meld.
The first merge I did, even after reading the website, I couldn't fathom it. I understood the paradigm of merging into $BASE but couldn't figure out how to simply take these 5 lines from $REMOTE and these 3 from $LOCAL, so went back to the trusty Beyond Compare.
