This curio bothered me as well. I didn't yet get a fully satisfying explanation for this either.

There's this diagram, showing for example the full pathway of how linoleic acid catabolizes: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Linoleic_acid_beta_o...

It shows dependencies of the process onto several very specific molecular machines we call enzymes.

(main pathway, handling saturated fatty acids)

   ° Acyl CoA dehydrogenase -- removes 2 hydrogens from carbons immediately after the carboxylic head, forming a π-bond (double-bond) between the α-β carbons;
   ° Enoyl CoA hydratase -- adds water as H-OH to that α-β carbons π-bond;
   ° 3-hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase -- converts the added -OH hydroxyl group to =O keto group;
   ° β-ketothiolase -- grabs the two keto groups, and snips off 2 carbons from the chain, carrying them off in bound form as a molecule of acyl-CoA;

   ° Dienoyl CoA reductase -- collapses two neighboring π-bonds into one;
   ° Enoyl CoA isomerase -- converts cis- to trans- variants, making them compatible with Enoyl CoA hydratase. Pathway continues from there.

Besides catalysis (combustion of the acids for energy), the two other paths for consumed fatty acids are excretion, and laying them into cell walls and membranes. These two paths aren't selective; they mostly don't care about the length of the chain, and where which π-bonds occur in it, if any.

So this must imply, that the "quirk of evolution" lives somewhere on the anabolic (synthesis/production) side of fatty acids; definitely not on the catabolic side.

Scientifically, it's cool of course, dependent linear types yaay.

Socially though, incompatible rewrite in Scheme should've been a separate project IMO; but since it's called "Idris 2", community attention faded away from the Haskell implementation "Idris 1". Which caused bad maintenance, neglect, stagnation, of a thing I tried and liked.

Similarly to SemVer, the good-faith grader attempts to convey a sizeable blob of knowledge... by compressing it into a one-dimensional number. No matter the scoring formula, this step is lossy.

On the receiving end of this communication, all you can do with the score is add a huge grain of salt to it, then perhaps use to prioritize your review queue. You still must check the details, and work out a judgement tailored to your specific context. There's no other way.

There isn't a choice for the grader either, to skip the obscenely lossy scoring step. Just like with release versions, they must do it, as the audience consists of unbounded number of engineers; faithfully doing it saves mountains of time for everyone involved (present and future).

Just like with dependency upgrades, it's the consumer's choice to disregard CVE scores (version numbers), vulnDB entries (changelogs), or even existence itself of a vulnerability (upgrade). Likewise, it's their fault if consequences arise.

Viewed thusly, can be seen: anecdotes of pointwise drama will continue (even when the bulk of activity chugs along happily, efficiently and quietly) -- because at the core of it, CVE ID's and scores are just that, a communication tool. It mostly can't make strangers exercise care or spend effort more than they're willing to. It can optimise utility of attention that they do pay.

Please notice, there needs to be some sort of verification mechanism. The russians have already figured out that simply setting "Ukraine" in profile data a) works b) might suffice to bypass the upcoming restriction.

I'd seen some; wishing I could unsee those.

* It seems that, as a species, we have deep issues rooted in our tribal upbringing. Reaching a global actionable consensus seems as hard (if not harder) as colonizing another planet. The internet only catalyzes the "us vs they" thinking people struggle to get rid of. In one of its many incarnations, it's a nurture of horribly mistaken worldviews — and here I imply climate change denialism, in context. But also flat earth, etc.

* Viewed independently from antropogenic climate change catastrophy -- living on another planet would be extraordinary achievement, would you disagree? Launching a "toy" helicopter is kinda cool, but... living? For some of our greatest ancestors, the coolest achievement has been building millenia-lasting megastructures. Our generations are building fusion testbeds, orbital telescopes & commsat constellations; why wouldn't, say, a giant Earth-shaped globe monument on Mars be great? Perhaps not a globe, yea... but a Statue Of Liberty? Dao temple maybe? A hammer-and-sickle impact crater giga-egraving? Whatever.

* Both viewed together, rationally, Mars colonization is an option to escape extinction on Earth. Not a priority, sure; more like, a backup-of-backup-of-backup plan -- for when all else failed (see point 1). It's not like we can do it soon, either; advance preparations and long practice needed. I won't express any judgement of viability. I do see, however, how ambition and inter-tribe competition can drive this plan to a ready state (see point 2) -- sooner than fossil fuel combustion stops across the world.

Note also, that destroying just the thin tender habitable layer of Earth would suffice.

> URVs were quoted in cruzeiros reais and its intrinsic value was pegged to three price indices and had a fixed parity of 1-to-1 to the daily U.S. dollar exchange rate. [0]

> The problem with pegging your currency is that you get a disconnect between the official value and the private value. So introducing this new currency which was pegged, and transferring over only once the disconnect was resolved was the stroke of genius.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidade_real_de_valor

Your reasoning is sound. But it won't be as bad. I'd claim, not much worse than dealing with leap seconds.

For 2 reasons: • Post-Quantum Cryptography exists. • The updated (quantum-resistant) Bitcoin will get renamed back to Bitcoin.

I agree your parent could use a review. I failed to read them any far.

I don't care if you hand-coded all those buckets of accessors, or your IDE has generated them -- that's irrelevant to that they're still overwhelmingly useless noise. Which I need to read through, which I need to review in PR diffs, skim in "find symbol usage" output, class interface outlines, javadocs, etc etc -- all that 10 as often as during writing. Somehow I'm expected to learn to ignore meaningless code, while producing it is fine?..

Remember the point made in "green languages, brown languages" recent post here on HN? The insight for me there was the source of "rewrite it from scratch" urge which should be very familiar to engineers working in the field. It comes from incomprehensible code or weak code reading skills. Either way, boilerplate does nothing but harm.

So no, while I agree on your point that code exists principally to be read by humans (and as a nice secondary bonus, executed by machines) -- I disagree that boilerplate is "fine" whatever its incarnation. It's not, because it directly damages the primary purpose of code: its readability.

Not unless you've taken a concrete definition for "a lot of people".

Even 1% of internet users is still a lot of people IMO. Like, on the order of tens of millions, right?.. That's bigger than whole countries.

Also keep in mind how outraging it feels to find yourself in that 1% that someone decided it was fine to ignore and discriminate against the mainstream. We all been there.

In that case, it's presumed it was indeed a massive extinction (but no data to quantify any % over, due to no microbial fossils preserved).

... But for a different reason. It wasn't due to decrease in oxygen levels; contrary to that. At that time, oxygen was being first ever introduced into the atmosphere. This has left a unique geological trace we observe everywhere across the planet: the white sedimentary + red rust striped 2 Ga rocks.

The "microbes" were the first photosynthesisers. The oxygen was a toxic byproduct. Resistance to it had to be learned by evolution, and that learning took ~1e8 years. Many of life didn't manage to and went extinct.

"Cultural differences" is an easy scapegoat.

> The system programming was not carried out in the UK, and in the country where it was performed the title Miss was used for a child, and Ms for an adult female, hence the error.

Just consider: if you're looking for privacy-respecting, actually secure, reviewed, audited and tested to bone tech -- short of replicating the work yourself, who's assessment can you trust? Perhaps paradoxically, you should foremost trust the unspoken opinions of criminals. Because those people are likely betting their lives and freedoms on the tech choice. Barely any other group will approach such a choice with more vigor.

So, morals aside, that a technology is being used by criminals is actually a compliment to that technology.

If you think about it, both of those describe the same economic transaction — just from opposing vantage points (what is "charging" to one party in a transaction, is "discharging" to the other).

Relatedly, consider Switzerland's pumped hydro at Linthal. It'd be hard to dispute calling that plant a "battery" (works on gravity+water); but also consider the economic role it plays: it's an energy price arbitrage facility.

During the night, when grid prices get low, the plant "buys" the energy "for" water volume in the high lake. During the local day, the plant "sells" the water volume back, "for" literal electricity fed back into the grid at a higher price.

... Why have the water?

It's almost comical: people continue insisting on "letters not code points" knowing very well how computers are bad with guesswork and under-defined notions. Issues stemming from that keep coming up. What if, instead, the norm accepted that 'A' ≠ 'a' and stopped creating problems which computers are known to deal poorly with?

We do have the options to ignore the fact and say "What bytes? I don't care. Guess what I mean, and lie to me as well as you can so I can stay happy in my ignorance" — but, see, coordinating good support for that isn't easy. Minor wrinkles in it continue causing burns, sometimes RCEs. Maybe "doing in Rome as Romans do" isn't such a bad advice after all?