You don’t say?!?!? Of course we’re a target, sending billions in missiles and support to an illegal occupying force that is openly committed to the liquefaction of Muslim children.
Our main export is murder.
I used the free trial. The algorithm was a whole lot shittier than spotify’s recommendations. It had the same annoying vibe as the regular youtube algo where if you watch one video from Jordan Peterson, you suddenly inherit the feed of an Elon Musk worshipping alt right tech bro.
It was the same for music. I listened to one song as a joke then it stopped recommending good music and just made my whole feed into joke songs. Much like youtube’s algorithm, youtube music algo clearly uses google’s machnine learning tech (which they use for ads too) where it tries so hard to predict what you like without real data, instead preferring to use solely other people’s browsing habits rather than creating a unique profile for that user without it making too many assumptions right off the bat. Perhaps, I’d describe that algorithm as “HIGHLY reductive” when compared to any other recommendatiion algorithm which seem more geared toward slowly discovering the tastes of its users.
I work in the film industry side of lighting and we use HMI’s all the time (sometimes without the UV protective glass if the gaffer is a cowboy…). I’ve never really run into this with theatrical/event lights when we do use them…but then again you seem to know about situations like this.
There are so many old gaffers who have cataracts now because of all of those years looking directly into the hot spot of a carbon arc.
You’re probably correctly blaming the board while I think it was Aliexpress lights with actual UV emitters.
The article also came to no conclusion, though they did point to an event that also happened in 2017 where this happened and the culprit was… what I “guessed”. I’m sexy and I know it. 😜
I edited my comment to talk about imperative vs FP rather than OO vs FP because FP can actually be OO. What I meant was imperative.
Anyway, in most functional implementations, state is usually handled by a minimal top layer. Functional paradigms are helpful in keeping the complexity to a minimum.
I like to use the functional core, imperative wrapper design style.
I could go on for a week but here’s some copypasta that mirrors why I wrote this (sorry not to write an essay in my own words). Honestly, there’s a lot more than listed here (like the inherent ability to parallelize any functional code basically out of the box) but let us take a stab at comparing them:
The functional programming paradigm was explicitly created to support a pure functional approach to problem solving. Functional programming is a form of declarative programming. In contrast, most mainstream languages, including object-oriented programming (OOP) languages such as C#, Visual Basic, C++, and Java, were designed to primarily support imperative (procedural) programming. With an imperative approach, a developer writes code that specifies the steps that the computer must take to accomplish the goal. This is sometimes referred to as algorithmic programming. In contrast, a functional approach involves composing the problem as a set of functions to be executed. You define carefully the input to each function, and what each function returns.
Advantages of pure functions
The primary reason to implement functional transformations as pure functions is that pure functions are composable: that is, self-contained and stateless. These characteristics bring a number of benefits, including the following:
Increased readability and maintainability. This is because each function is designed to accomplish a specific task given its arguments. The function doesn’t rely on any external state.
Easier reiterative development. Because the code is easier to refactor, changes to design are often easier to implement. For example, suppose you write a complicated transformation, and then realize that some code is repeated several times in the transformation. If you refactor through a pure method, you can call your pure method at will without worrying about side effects.
Easier testing and debugging. Because pure functions can more easily be tested in isolation, you can write test code that calls the pure function with typical values, valid edge cases, and invalid edge cases.
Edit: my below comment was actually wrong. They actually do use git.
Thanks for sharing. What I find most interesting is that Linus is still using the same email-based software development methods for the kernel while the rest of the software engineering world has evolved to use his other invention, git, for that. I’m kind of second-hand embarrassed for those geniuses who have yet to adopt proper version control for (what I’d argue is) the most important project in the computing world.
Here’s a far more nuanced explanation from Spore’s reply to this comment :
Git and Email are not mutually exclusive. In order to collaborate with git, you need and only need a way to send your commits to others. Commits can be formatted as plain-text files and sent through emails. That is how git has been used by its author from literally the first release of it.
Of course we don’t need them. We don’t need so many things that the ruling class pushes on us like war and austerity.
What we have now is feudalism with a few extra layers of abstraction. Can you picture feudalism without the need for a class of serfs? I’ll give you a hint…on a long enough timeline this humanoid robot serf replacement program produces only two potential outcomes:
countless murdered poor people.
post-scarcity utopia like we see in Star Trek: TNG.