Cool. Cool cool cool

It’s a bear dance!

Unfortunately, “sauron [command]” still won’t see the Jia Tan backdoor obscured in the shadows, nor the_ring.yml that you’re piping to /dev/null

Imagine being so disliked that it becomes the goal of elderly voters to live long enough to vote against you, nevermind that it’s a former president

If its something that represents mutually exclusive states, like the license plates examples (Gov’t, Embassy, Learner), an enum like 4wd mentioned is a better idea than many boolean keys. This would also be the switch/case question you posed. For a “regular case”, I would include that in the enum, but if you create an enum that only contains “special cases”, you can always set it to null.

On the case of booleans, I would suggest avoiding them unless it is necessary, and truly a binary (as in, two-option, not binary numbers), self-contained-in-one-key thing (obligatory anti-boolean video). If the use case is to say what a different key’s object represents, you don’t need it (see: enums. You’ll thank yourself later if you add a third option). If the use case for using it is saying another key contains value(s), you don’t need it. Many languages can handle the idea of “data is present, or not present” (either with “truthy/falsey” behavior interpreting “data-or-null”, or “Maybe/Option” types), so often “data-or-null” can suffice instead of booleans.

I would suggest trying to always include all keys of a present object, even if it’s value is null or not applicable. It will prevent headaches later when code might try to access that key, but it isn’t present. This approach might also help you decide to reduce the quantity of keys, if they could be consolidated (as in taking booleans and converting to a state-like enum, as mentioned above), or removed (if unused and/or deprecated).

There is some way to get things going on startup on Steamdeck, even in Steam-mode (Big Picture mode? Not-desktop mode?). I had to do it for Syncthing, I just don’t remember exactly what I did. I probably made a service file if I had to take a guess, but I think an “@reboot” cron job might work too

Correct

I say there are four categories:

• “standalones”: anything that is only described as itself. Separation just results in smaller versions of itself.
• sandwiches: organized or layered arrangements of foods. Can typically be separated into it’s composing parts.
• salads: tossed or jumbled arrangements of foods. Could be separated into its parts, albeit cumbersome.
• sauces: perfectly combined or blended arrangements of foods. Can no longer be separated into its composing parts, but differs from a standalone because it was still composed of other foods, and can still be identified or described as all of the parts.

/s is bloat, say it like you mean it!

For a while I had an Asus laptop, and no matter what, it seemed to not want to work properly with systemd-based distros. It would hang on-boot about 95+% of the time, I’d hard shut-off, restart, repeat.

On a whim, I tried Void Linux (runit) on it. And for whatever reason, it worked.

Elm

In short, it’s ruined my expectations of languages. It’s a functional language, like the style of Haskell, and transpiles to html or js (its meant for web). There’s very little that it allows for going wrong, and for things that could fail, it either tells you to port that out to JS and bring it back when you’re done, or you have to handle a Result type or Maybe type.

It sounds strict, yes, but not having to deal with issues later is so nice.

Hello world should look something like this: print("Hello, World"!)

You don’t need the annotation line in Haskell-esque languages, most of the time. Without the annotation, this is Hello World in Haskell:

main = print "Hello, World!"

And when you need more complexity, it can still be far simpler than Unison (or Haskell)

import qualified Data.List as List
import Data.Function ((&))

processNumbers numbers =
    let
        isEven n = mod n 2 == 0
    in
    numbers
        & List.filter isEven
        & List.map (^2)

main =
    processNumbers [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
        & print

i starts at 0, checks if i is less than n (the first time it will be, no matter what), prints a “#”, then increments i by 1 and loops

Why does the for loop repeat after it exits to print a new line? If it exits the loop, shouldn’t it be done with it?

There’s the new line after the for loop to make sure that the next recursion starts on a fresh line. Otherwise the next recursion would print on the same line, right where it left off, and you’d just have a line of “#”'s. The for loop itself is just for printing “#”'s.

Why is n incremented and not i as stated with i++?

I think this is a confusion with the recursion. Look at the line with draw(n - 1); this happens before any printing of hashes happens, and only continues after its done. And it calls itself as long as it’s not less than or equal to 0. To psuedo-code the order of operations here:

draw 3 {
    draw 2 {
        draw 1 {
            draw 0 {};
            print "#" * 1;
        };
        print "#" * 2;
    };
    print "#" *3;
};

so n is never incremented as you think, it just calls decremented versions of the draw function before the current one finishes. The i’s are purely involved in the for loop, which only prints hashes. Does that make sense?

Although, i would agree with it not necessarily being “friendly”, since its a drastically different syntax than many beginners would be used to, the brackets and parenthesis here are not what you think they are.

Unison is a language in the style of Haskell, F#, Purescript, Elm, etc. So that first line is actually type annotations.

In Haskell, this would just be helloWorld :: IO () , meaning a function named “helloWorld” with no arguments and produces what is essentally a potentially-unsafe IO action with a Void return (the empty parenthesis () ).

Here in Unison they call the bracket part “abilities” or something. Its saying the same thing as Haskell, but being more explicit in saying it can raise an exception.

I think maybe starting with Leninism, what youre saying may be true, but not with Marxism. I think this comment explains it a bit well:

comment

So the original Marxist idea would lead to withering-away of government, and thus zero parties, not one-party authoritarianism. But due to all the authoritarian implementations, people think of states like the USSR when they hear/see communism

The problem is these people are voted in by states who comprise of residents who have brain injuries, misogynistic views, extremist ideals, and/or a myriad of other skewed thoughts.

So unfortunately we get stuck with the consequences of other state’s resident’s decisions

Well I ask these cause authoritarianism seems counterintuitive to the main philosophy around Marxism. Saying “the proletariat should have greater value and power in a business, since they’re doing the actual labor”, but then rolling over and accepting a dictatorship where the populace has no political say seems nonsensical.

Hence why I suspect the authoritarianism must have come first. So I can’t necessarily agree to “communism predisposing itself to authoritarianism” since it doesn’t make sense for a True-Marxist society to want to accept that sort of government.

As for how to set up the government in a communist-economy state: probably more of a Republic. People elect multiple representatives, and these representatives meet and decide on policies for the country and how to run it

Every major country that has ever gone down the communist road ended up a dictatorship

While I don’t think full-on Marxism is necessary and am in agreement on the democratic socialism, I think the reason for this is really more towards the political end of it than the economic.

If a country practicing a communist economy had a more representative/democratic political system from the start, I’d like to see how the results panned out. And I’d also like to see which came first, the dictatorship, or the communism. The former being first makes more sense than the latter.

Agreed. Functional languages really raised my standard for what a language could be.

Stronger typing. More functional flow. Less dumb errors.