That sounds bad.

sapeur de combat (combat engineer?)

Sapper in en-gb!

You need to

Given it was a joke, I don’t think you need to do anything…

The OS’s file APIs won’t have a defined order in which they return entries in a directory

Sorting is a thing :)

Verification is important, but I think you’re omitting from your imagination a real and large category of people who have a basic familiarity with spreadsheets and computers, so are able to understand a potential solution and see whether it makes sense, but who do not have the ability to quickly come up with it themselves.

In language it’s the difference between receptive and productive vocabulary: there are words which you understand but which you would never say or write because they’re part of your receptive, but not productive knowledge.

There are times when this will go wrong, because the LLM will can produce something plausible but incorrect and such a person will fail to spot it. And of course if you blindly trust it with something you’re not actually capable of (or willing to) check then you will also get bad results.

I got around to watching this video… without having seen this guy before (and therefore having no reason to take what he says at face value), and with the “source” in his description being almost unrelated to the video content, all that’s left is that “Yoti is funded by trusts, Carnegie is a trust mentioned on Yoti’s website.”

That is conspiracy-theory level. The author doesn’t even go so far as to draw actual conclusions; he’s saying “we need to follow the money” which is reasonable, but you are saying “Carnegie invested in an age verifier and that’s why they wrote the law.” That’s going well beyond the facts. You wouldn’t stand for it when some moron tries to cast doubt on climate science and you shouldn’t stand for it now just because it tickles your biases.

Some of that money probably went to companies doing ID verification

Quite possibly. But almost certainly a lot of Carnegie’s money is going to companies who provide online services who now have much higher costs from doing age verification, content blocking and users fleeing, simply because there are a lot of companies in that position.

A couple of days ago I started it using Steam remote play to the deck, just assuming that it would suck on Deck itself. Apparently it gets 40fps on low settings on Deck which is better than I expected but still kinda sucky.

The blog post is really about language design, because you definitely should not write a filter method for your custom iterable class in python; you should make it use the language’s interface’s for “being an iterable”. Language design involves APIs offered by the language, but isn’t really the purview of most people who write APIs.

If a suggestion on language design would gain something at the cost of readability, anyone should be very skeptical of that.

Those things together explain why I am evaluating the post mostly in terms of readability.

I assume someone wanting to “integrate their phone’s functionality” is OK with a bit of personal data sharing with big tech.

Aren’t Meta’s smart glasses that?

Assistive technology is a massive area of development in smart glasses; it absolutely is being designed for people with vision and hearing impairments.

I dunno, did we?

I think rust’s iterator chains are nice, and IDE auto-complete is part of that niceness. But comprehension expressions read very naturally to me, more so than iterator chains.

I mean, how many python programmers don’t even type hint their code, and so won’t get (accurate) auto-complete anyway? Auto-completion is nice but just not the be-all and end-all.

I would never have thought to try to play Elden Ring on a handheld console, never mind a Switch (2).

You know what actually works for this? A physical slider like my second smartphone had which switches between silent, vibrate and loud. That was the only time I actually switched away from vibrate because it was easy, and I could do it in my pocket without looking at the phone (especially nice in situations where looking at it might itself be rude)

Welcome to politics. Have you never seen parliament debate?

Yes. The convincing speeches are those with facts behind them.

You are wrong. The vibes tell me… but so do the facts.

I was also thinking about UFCS. I do like it for its flexibility, but I did try it in Nim one time and was left feeling unsure. Unfortunately I now can’t remember what exactly I didn’t like about it.

I’m always suspicious of people who say that a language is suboptimal and use as evidence some filthy one-liner. Maybe if you bothered to write some whitespace and didn’t write the language ignorant of its features (like generator expressions) you would end up with better code?

sum(
    all(
        abs(x) >= 1 and abs(x) <= 3 for x in line
    ) and (
        all(x > 0 for x in line) or
        all(x < 0 for x in line)
    )
    for line in diffs
)

You no longer have to “jump back and forth” except one single time - you have to look to the end to see where line is coming from and then you can read the body of the main expression from start to finish.

People don’t, in fact, read code from top to bottom, left to right; they read it by first looking at its “skeleton” - functions, control flow, etc - until finding the bit they think is most important to read in detail. That implies that “jumping back and forth” is a natural and necessary part of reading (and hence writing) code, and so is nothing to fear.

There is still a slight advantage to not having to jump around, but consider the costs: in Javascript, map and filter are methods on Array and some other types. So how are you going to implement them for your custom iterable type? Do you have to do it yourself, or write lots of boilerplate? It’s easy in Python. It’s not bad in Rust either because of traits, but what this all means is that to get this, you need other, heavy, language features.

In practice, you often know what a comprehension is iterating over due to context. In those situations, having what the comprehension produces be the most prominent is actually a boon. In these scenarios in Rust/JS you are left skipping over the unimportant stuff to get to what you actually want to read.

Except they don’t like functional primitives like map unless they’re namespaced to iterable types…

Absolute bollocks. Doesn’t require anything. It only requires personal opinion. Parliament runs on it.

If your opposition is just based on vibes than it can be ignored based on nothing more than that.

You should practice it.

Levy is a Tax.

Oh, you are talking about an actual fee in the legislation, not the cost of contracting with a company that verifies ages.

The cost though is £70 million. Since you raise the prospect of child poverty, the one policy the government needs to reverse to improve child poverty is the two-child benefit cap, which would cost £2.1bn, so this policy costs 3% of a substantive policy on child poverty.

A high estimate for how many deaths could be prevented by lifting the cap is about 300 per year, that I have seen (it’s not really about the cap itself but is about modelling what would happen if Labour were able to reduce child poverty at the same rate it was in 1997-2010, which would presumably include eliminating the cap). 3% of 300 is 9 deaths. While I don’t support the OSA, I think it is completely plausible that a policy which reduces the amount children are looking at extreme violence and advocation of eating disorders and suicide would prevent in the region of 9 deaths per year. About 150 children die each year by suicide (according to statistics, which will undercount the problem because parents as a rule don’t want their child’s death to be recorded as suicide). And saving 9 lives is to bring this policy in line, cost-wise, with an estimate that relates to a whole programme of government, which will in reality cost far more than £2.1bn.

Cost is not the right lens through which to examine the OSA, no matter what your personal opinion tells you.

The requirement to file accounts is not a tax. Call things what they are, not whatever you’ve decided they’re similar to in your mind. To do is either confusing or dishonest, depending on whether people ultimately see through what you’re doing or not.

Opposition to this on the basis of finances requires you to actually have some idea of the fiscal outcome. If the number of British children who end up bypassing the rules and viewing genuinely harmful material is small then it will result in lower costs from children traumatised, mentally ill or killing themselves.

I oppose the act because of incalculable costs to privacy, not because it might mean Facebook has to display 10 more ads to someone to maintain their profit margins.

It’s not a tax burden because it’s not any kind of tax. It’s a cost of doing business, like the cost of keeping and filing accounts. Imposing an additional cost on services which are by-and-large ad-funded/freemium does not have nearly the same effects as funding something out of the treasury.