As someone who works exclusively in typed languages for formal methods, what is it you find lacking about modern Python + PyLance? IMO there's still a tiny verbosity issue, and there's no real replacement for fancier polymorphism or (G)ADTs, but I'm very satisfied with it for most things. In particular, null checks are trivial.

Source? You seem to be talking about compile-time versus runtime, and I've not even heard of compile times being significantly slowed by type checking.

> The dynamic stuff is part of what slows down languages like Python and makes them tricky to optimize.

That seems to harm rather than help your previous claim. In untyped languages, in principle every object has to be treated as dynamic.

Maybe I'm biased as someone who has attained a PhD, but a PhD or master's is definitively not a license. It's almost necessary to have an advanced degree to be taken seriously, but that's not for reasons of normativity, but rather basic competence and a signal of investment. Your degree will not be revoked for the same reasons a doctor's or lawyer's license may be revoked (Francesca Gino lost her tenure, but not her degree). And IMO, your alma mater matters only as a proxy for your academic network; few in the academic world care if you went to MIT per se, but for the connections you made there.

I don't think there's an argument that the scientific establishment rejects many high-value contributions from uncredentialed/undercredentialed individuals.

> publications in a select list of high profile journals

Yeah, this is a serious issue. Although I don't know what it has to do with the question of whether the body of scientists proper should deliberate to establish consensus and distribute resources and prestige. If anything, Elsevier et al. have demonstrated that it can't be worse than letting the free market insert itself so insidiously.

I might be an idiot.

> Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything?

Does action-less speech achieve anything? Advertising, PSAs, political campaigning, etc. all indicate its value in attaining mindshare. Moreover, freedom of expression is liberating for people.

> there are single purchase games with an online model, and they fail and get shut down because they were never sustainable to begin with

I still don't think I agree with this (it's the exact same business model, just with an onboarding cost to e.g. be less dependent on MTX, or to cultivate a smaller but more dedicated fanbase, or to shut out bots), but that's beside the above points.

If you want an answer to your "continuous cost without continuous revenue" riddle, the answer is in-game purchases, DLC, attracting new accounts over time, and the unspoken unadvertised promise "we can cut our losses at any time and shut down servers." This lattermost incentive is what is unhealthy for the market and what should be regulated to no longer be an incentive (short of having peer- or community-hosted servers, at least).

I couldn't easily figure out her mercy gimmick, and I understood her to have agreed to live by the blade, and by extension, die by it. Given her relentless hunting of the main character it seemed not inappropriate.

After subsequent playthroughs my thoughts are more complicated.

Generally, I think the common-law notion of "consideration + chance + prize" augmented with the requirement of an "insurable interest" (in order to keep the insurance industry legal) discerns the truth well enough. Insisting that any "prize" not be monetary or monetarily-convertible keeps it from becoming a cyclical addiction, and evaluating infractions relative to volume keeps extremists from banning gumball machines and Kinder eggs.

Back around 2020 when mortgage rates very briefly dipped below 3%, there could have been an argument. But such is no longer the case and not likely to return soon.

This guy breaks down the analysis very cleanly to a first-order approximation, using 2019 figures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwl3-jBNEd4

> It's a choice between $1m in housing appreciating at 3% or $100k in stocks appreciating at 9%.

Just to drive the point home: It would be $100k in stocks appreciating at 9% and monthly rent subtracted, or $1m in housing appreciating at 3% and a $900k debt growing at 5%+ interest.