So most lines like A { B{ on D{ print() } } C{} } equivalently desugar into something like a = A; b = B(); a.mount(b); d = D(); d.on(f); b.mount(d); .. ?

I got confused by a couple of things. One of them is whether object parameters act like context parameters and there for depend on names in the caller variable scope? Ie if i define 'fn ship.Explode', i must have variable ship at call site? But i can still otherwise pass it explicitly as alien_ship.Explode(), right? How do i know if a particular call takes the current object into account? If i have two variables in my nested scope: ship and asteriod and both have ship.Explode and asteroid.Explode, which one is picked if i do just `Explode`? The innermost? Or I can't have two functions like that because the first thing is literally just a named variable and not a "method"?

Overall, if you could provide some examples of how things could have de-sugured into a different language, that'd be very interesting! Maybe with some examples of why this or that pattern is useful? I think it does a good job for things like on / once, but I'm not grokking how one would structure an app using this variable scoping use clause and object parameters.

Also not sure how to define functions that could be on'd or once'd. (Ah, i see, delve)

""" Continuing with the previous example of “ß”, one has lowercase("ss") != lowercase("ß") but uppercase("ss") == uppercase("ß"). Conversely, for legacy reasons (compatibility with encodings predating Unicode), there exists a Kelvin sign “K”, which is distinct from the Latin uppercase letter “K”, but also lowercases to the normal Latin lowercase letter “k”, so that uppercase("K") != uppercase("K") but lowercase("K") == lowercase("K").

The correct way is to use Unicode case folding, a form of normalization designed specifically for case-insensitive comparisons. Both casefold("ß") == casefold("ss") and casefold("K") == casefold("K") are true. Case folding usually yields the same result as lowercasing, but not always (e.g., “ß” lowercases to itself but case-folds to “ss”). """

One question I have is why have Kelvin sign that is distinct from Latin K and other indistinguishable symbols? To make quantified machine readable (oh, this is not a 100K license plate or money amount, but a temperature)? Or to make it easier for specialized software to display it in correct placed/units?

https://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/contents.html

Ideally, imho, a struct is a dumb data holder - it is there to pass associated pieces of data together (or hold a complex unavoidable state change hidden from the user like Arc or Mutex).

All that is to say that adding a field to an existing struct and possibly populating it sparsely in some remote piece of code should not changed existing behavior.

I wonder whether there's a way to communicate to whoever makes changes to the pizza details struct that it might have unintended consequences down the line.

Should one wrap PizzaDetails with PizzaComparator? Or better even provide it as a field in PizzaOrder? Or we are running into Java-esq territory of PizzaComparatorBuilderDefaultsConstructorFactory?

Should we introduce a domain specific PizzaFlavor right under PizzaDetails that copies over relevant fields from PizzaDetails, and PizzaOrder compares two orders by constructing and comparing their flavours instead? A lot of boilerplate.. but what is being considered important to the pizza flavor is being explicitly marked.

In a prod codebase I'd annotate this code with "if change X chaange Y" pre submit hook - this constraint appears to be external to the language itself and live in the domain of "code changes over time". Protobufs successfully folded versioning into the language itself though. Protobufs also have field annotations, "{important_to_flavour=true}" field annotation would be useful here.

I'd actually go further and argue that what appears to twist this social fabric inside out is not only the online nature of the interaction itself, but the corporate centralized algorithmic nature of it. I am in no way a proponents of decentralizing everything (social media, money, infra, etc) for the sake of it - most systems work more efficiently when centralized, that's just a fact of reality. Maybe the fact that ads, corporate communications (linkedin -speak posts / slack / mcdonald's twitter account) and social interactions now live in the same space (and barely distinguishable in feeds) must have somehow forced these spaces to use the most uniform neutered language that lacks subtleties allowed in 1:1 communications? So people speak in political slogans and ad jingles instead of actual thoughts? Because these spaces NEED people to speak like that to stay civil and "corporately acceptable"? I am just brainstorming, in no way suggesting that a "free for all" is a solution.

I watched a movie called Anora recently, and toward the end there's a dialogue along the lines of

- If not for these other people in the room, you'd have raped me! - No I wouldn't. - Why not? - (baffled and laughing) Because I am not a rapist.

One way to interpret this movie, this dialogue, and what follows is that the main female character has been used and abused her entire life by the rich / capitalist system in general / embodied by a character of a rich bratty child of an oligarch in particular - that her world almost assumes this kind of transactional exploitation as a part of human relationships - and struggles to feel safe without it - almost seeking more exploitation to feel somewhat in control. And the other person in the dialogue above (who is not a rich child) counters that by asserting and knowing very well who he is (and isn't), and that knowledgeable doesn't require or provide any further justification.

Tldr maybe the magical dream of a conflict-free society where people understand each other is not ours after all - maybe it is the ideal grassland for ad-driven social media to monetize our interactions in a safe controlled fashion? one evidence towards that is the de-personalized neutered templated nature of the kind of "advice" that people give online to earn social credit - that leaks into real world 1-to-1 interactions in the form of anxiety of being "watched and judged" - as described by the author?

It is akin to situations that several comics I heard described -in which either a caretaker (or even the relative with a disability themselves) was corrected and schooled for using "non inclusive language" when addressing their relative / a relative referring themselves. To which, anecdotally, the typical reaction of the said relative was along the lines of "oh, i am sorry honey, i wanted to say it is hard for a damn useless cripple like me".

Good that things are working out for you.

Recently found that, on top of meds (that started wearing off - after taking them for a couple years now following a challenging life situation), going to social latin dance classes for a couple hours almost every day after work helps quite a bit.

Is it precisely that the currency could not be exported outside the local region - that made it a barter tool vs an investment tool - that made it less affected by such external events as great depression?

What was the central government fearing? I'm sure there's a reason why it might be a less than ideal situation. Maybe because it is effectively a financial pyramid (more so than the primary currency) - a bunch of local govt making their local currencies with unclear unregulated printing schedule could result in many people not assessing their real purchasing power adequately?