Even dynamically type programming languages will layout what types the languages has. But that is usually the conventions built off of years of history, usually based on C.

But what if you wanted to define a custom type to use? Say you wanted to make type mysmallint, and it was an integer that is between 1 and 1000. Now, you can write up code to do this but it is not the same thing as declaring type int. *

*unless you are using Haskell, F#, or others I am not aware of.

What if you wanted to define a custom type that says this string only contains ascii characters? You can not easily define that as a type and pass it around the code. You have to write custom code and do checks.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49337065

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h...

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-advertising-actually-w...

The second part goes into internet advertising.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-advertising-actually-w...

There are transcripts of the episodes on the page if you want to read instead of listen.

And I realized, this is what people want, in the sense of this is what they will pay for, this is how they vote with their wallet. What I want is not this, but it is what society wants.

He wrote his note in his copy of Arithmetica around 1637.

He most likely wrote his proof for the case of n=4 in the 1640s.

He sent letters to other mathematicians in 1640, 1657 where he talks about the case of n=3 but writes in such a way that it seems like he does not have the answer.

Why would he write n=4 after? If he had a generalized proof?

Why would he tease other mathematicians with a special case in 1657 if he already had a generalized proof?

I do recall some reports that concentrated on just workers that had unions in the United States versus workers in a similar field that did not have unions, and it concluded that unionized workers get paid more.

But, it was not the tech sector, so someone, maybe you, will argue it does not count.

Just very, very difficult to get to the bottom of what is the best way.

I am in the we should unionize camp. My stance is based on, the tech companies have way more leverage than you or I. They do not work in your interest. A union is imperfect but it is better than nothing to get "some" leverage back.

You wrote "Modern tech workers arguably have the best career deal in the history of humankind".

How do you know?

And, for the sake of argument, let us say it is the best deal in the history of humankind, does that make it fair that the big tech companies did the following...

As a small rebuttal of sorts, consider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

You are making less money than what you would have been making if that illegal arrangement had not been made.

I do not know why that mentality exists in the industry, but I see it all the time... for the past 35 years.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49136053

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

But you find seeing the text for a couple of seconds too annoying to use codeberg? Maybe it is more than 2 seconds for you?

Everyone has their views on what is acceptable in the world and what they will put up with. Just, to my point of view, I think codeberg is trying to fight the good fight in keeping llms from crawling their website.

I am not knocking this Free Mermaid Diagram Editor either. Seems decent. But, similarly, edotor has been around forever.

https://edotor.net/

https://archive.org/details/COM_20120127_020000_The_Daily_Sh...

But, quoting "We've reached a dangerous moment. This moment threatens to convince too many of us that our lived experiences do not matter."

I think that "moment" was long before AI LLMs came around. I can only speak from my lived experiences, and I would say the tech industry and capitalism already put a low, low value on "lived experiences". Take game development, it seems to me, that big game studios rely on "a new fresh crop of college grads" will appear every year. We can push them as hard as we can. Hopefully, they will quit, and we can hire another batch.

I see it too, with lower wage jobs. No point in trying to keep our burger flippers happy. They are going to quit. Might as well factor that into the equation and just make a system with a revolving work force. No commitment. No retirement plan.

Years ago, I stumbled upon the "idea" was already debated in other fields long before programming. Lumpers and Splitters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

I wrote a while back, Most of the executives I have met really have no clue. They just go with what is being promoted in the space because it offers a safety net. Look, we are "not behind the curve!". We are innovating along with the rest of the industry.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46670190