type Option = T | undefined

    function f(value: T): Option { ... }

    let thing: string | undefined = undefined;
    let result = f(thing);

    #!/bin/sh
    foo
    bar

    #!/bin/sh
    foo
    exec bar

But the distinction can be important due to a variety of side effects and if you could only achieve it through carefully following a pattern that the shell might or might not recognize, that would be very limiting.

In my preferred model of on-call, you have a primary, then after 5min an escalation to secondary, then after 5min an escalation to something drastic (sometimes "everyone", sometimes a manager).

The expectation is that most of the time you should be able to respond within 5 minutes, but if you can't then that's what the secondary role is for - to catch you. This means it's perfectly acceptable to go for a run, go to a movie, etc.

You relax the responsibility on the individual and let a sensible amount of redundancy solve the problem instead. Everyone is less stressed, and sure you get the occasional 5min delay in response but I'm willing to bet that the overall MTTR is lower since people are well rested and happier to be on call to begin with.

This is more or less what the RfL folks are asking for - they have a Rust API to be used by other Rust code, which uses the existing C API, and are promising to maintain that API themselves. It lives in the Rust "directory".

The C maintainer is rejecting this, seemingly because his goal isn't to find a compromise that works but to completely block the project.

eg. I need to dismiss a dialog that is invisible over remote play, or it won't finish logging in until I close a "finish setting up your windows install" screen.

So it sounds like Mastodon was run by a non-profit, but the non-profit ran afoul of some legal issues, and they're now creating a fixed version? This seems to be administrative details, not news.

To clarify, I never intended that as a defence of FPTP. It's awful and I'll take any of the systems being discussed here over it. It was a statement specifically towards IRV over score/approval.

As the article mentions, in the real world score voting would just be approval voting where you put a max score on some choices and 0 on others.

And in approval voting you need to think about how others will vote and pick your cutoff point based on who you think has a chance - do you vote "yes" for the center-right party to avoid the hard right party getting in? Or do you vote "no" to help the center-left party beat the center-right party? (swap those directions to personal preference)

RCV isn't perfect, but in all but the smallest elections there's really no practical strategic voting considerations. You just state your true preference order.

Of course, I'll take any of them over FPTP.

Suppose we had a version of the ? operator that automatically appended a call stack to the error value returned. Are you saying that that's not "an exception" because I still need to write ? after each falliable function? Or because it's still part of the return type? Or is it specifically only an exception if it works via stack unwinding?