I have ours set to “Computer” anyways, partly due to Star Trek and partly because it annoys my wife when we use the term in conversation and it picks it up. It has the side effect of being harder to pronounce for our kids, which was probably a good thing.

I don't quite follow why you're making a distinction for non-lazy languages?

If you want to actually use any generic monad combinators with your monad interface, and expect it to behave sensibly, then the laws had better be satisfied!

But yeah... Nice article, and I really liked your "Noun / Adjective" distinction.

Simple: they’re trying to give you the solution, and it’s your duty as the responsible designer/developer to find out what problem they see. Here’s a nice set of questions I’m using (from Managing projects, people, and yourself [1] by Nick Toverovskiy):

1. What did you mean by that?

2. Why is it important?

3. How is this related to the purpose of the project?

4. How does this relate to other parts of the system? What else could be affected by this change?

5. Why is it critical to resolve this before the next release / deadline?

This should paint a fairly decent picture of what’s really on your client’s (or manager’s) mind. Then you can propose a solution to the real problem – which might very well be the one that your client has proposed!

(Some questions might sound stupid in context. You can skip them, or just admit it: “I’m gonna ask some questions which might make me sound like an idiot, but that would really help me figure out the problem better. Would that be alright with you?”)

[1]: https://bureau.ru/books/fff-demo/20 (in Russian)

As I understand it, one thing the tutorial didn't go into, which I think is an important subtlety, is that it's not enough to have an implementation of "bind" to have a monad interface. You also need an implementation of "return : a -> m a" (i.e. a way of making sources of 'a's when given an 'a'), AND a proof that these implementations together satisfy the monad laws (i.e. that they "play nicely" together).

Without all three components, you can have something that "looks like" a monad, in that it has definitions for "bind" and "return", but isn't actually one, because those particular definitions don't also satisfy the monad laws.

Does it matter that it happens over IP or CSAM? It doesn't happen over CSAM because there is no dispute there, there is no desync there between spain,the us and cloudflare.

But the mechanisms around these court orders aren't much different than those that would be used for other illegal or contentious material.

If a vendor chooses to pool and encrypt connections in a way that it is impossible to filter by hosts, and that vendor doesn't comply with court orders, then a country should absolutely block that entire vendor.

The liability of an unrelated pooled service failing is either the responsibility of the vendor or the application that chooses that vendor, not on the courts for enforcing the law without a subjective 'stopping point'.

What these vendors do is very similar to pooling in the layering phase of money laundering, but with packets: get traffic from legitimate customers, mix it with traffic from unlawful customers, pool them, and send encrypted EHLO so that the origin domain is encrypted and the packet source /destination are replaced by the vendor's. If this were done with money it would instantly trip all AML flags, but the tech world is much younger and hasn't discovered that laundering isn't cool or free as in freedom, it's a tool that the baddies use.

But with copyright, everything is broken everywhere, so they don't have to.

What you’ve described there is completely overblown for rhetoric.

The internet is still needed for delivering legal streams of matches. So there’s never going to be any pressure to turn off the entire internet.

Plus the likes of Amazon, and other online businesses would sue the hell out of La Liga for loss of trade.

So there’s no way in hell the situation would descend into your “logical conclusion”.

That’s not to say that the situation couldn’t get worse that it already is. Just that your logical conclusion isn’t very logical.

Aren't they now though? Like option is everywhere lately

I'll say though, I haven't tried the weakest model of Anthropic's but Opus and Sonnet will both push back more than I've seen another LLM do so. GPT was always trying to please me and Gemini was goofy. I'm surprised Gemini was the one that pushed back honestly!

I am not doing that. The caller (which is the only one being blocked here) is sync anyways and just wants to call an async function, so no async scheduler is blocked.

So I don't buy that async colors are fundamentally different.

well, this isn't really true - at least for Rust:

runtime.block_on(async{});

https://docs.rs/tokio/latest/tokio/runtime/struct.Handle.htm...