> Now I'm pretty sure we will see the first trillionaire in the next decade
Not if we do the right thing and switch to labeling our large numbers using the "long" system. Then they'll merely be back to being "billionaires" (instead of milliardaires) despite having the net worth you were discussing.
It does display the lyrics w/ one click, also the sheet music, has multiple recordings, and is actually Lehrer's site. It's true that there's no video.
There's a social sense in which you're correct - the machine wasn't counting on that wage, didn't cancel plans to be available, etc...
But from a financial perspective, most of the cost for the machines is probably in buying the machines, where most of the cost of the worker is probably hourly wage (or similar). Turning off the machines probably saves less money than sending the people home.
I think you probably need more dexterity (and grip strength) for minimal successful communication with a pen than with Morse code, especially if you wind up trying to do both without visual feedback.
The odds of those around you noticing is something you have some power over, if you're thinking about it ahead of time.
All true, but a pen still can be legibly used in at least some such situations. I've seen it done.
I'm not saying not to plan around Morse, just that it's a little early to assume there must be no other hope - and always too early to place much faith in being able to exert control over circumstances where, more or less definitionally, this is not a reasonable thing to expect.
That probably sounds scary. I can't help that. Dying is a scary topic, I imagine likely much more so for actually doing it, which I as yet have not. But I do know some things about how to handle fear, and one is that it helps a lot when that doesn't come by surprise - when you don't have to start totally from scratch to build what equanimity is available.
Less so than any one specific response, what I'd focus on trying to prepare for is that. You can't really know what tools you will have available in such a moment. You can't really know you will have any. Whatever there is, though, you'll have an easier time to recognize and use for being able to better see past that fear.
I don't think the fact that the law (rightly, I will grant) unified two things when determining whether to punish means that we should always unify those things in our reasoning in other contexts.
"Typing your code forces validations at the boundaries" was too strong because of course you can type your code without actually doing the validations, but you can structure your code such that that won't happen accidentally: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...
The idea is that checking should be the only way of making a value of the type. That prevents you from forgetting to check when you turn some broader type (say, string) into the more narrow one (date, in this case).
> "Typing your code forces validations at the boundaries" was too strong because of course you can type your code without actually doing the validations
Yeah, of course you can cheat the typechecking in the code at the boundary in several ways, or convert from wire format to internal types in a way which plugs in type-valid defaults for bad data rather than erroring, or just use too-broad internal types to start with (you can have "stringly-typed code"), and fail to help the problems. But if you use the types that make sense internally for what the code is doing, than conversion including validation at the boundary becomes the path of least resistance in most cases. "Forces" is not strictly true, but my experience is that adding types does create a strong push for boundary validation.
The accounts may be serious (even accurate!) but whoever chose the numbers was not being serious in their choice of number. Or it's quite the coincidence.
> The game "tit for tat" requires you actually tit if you get a tat.
My understanding is that in iterated prisoner's dilemma, "tit for two tats" will often outperform "tit for tat", so in its original setting that's not really the case.
Here in reality, of course, "tit for two tats" can be better exploited if it can be (easily enough) identified and there are more potential ways of doing that.
Not if we do the right thing and switch to labeling our large numbers using the "long" system. Then they'll merely be back to being "billionaires" (instead of milliardaires) despite having the net worth you were discussing.
reply