apta

36 ms·

361.
by apta 6y ago
Thanks again for the detailed response.
362.
by apta 6y ago
Thank you for taking the time to write this up, and the interesting anecdote. What I don't see though, is how is making a (g)RPC call any different from making a REST call? Like you said, the REST call is supposedly more explicit, but
363.
by apta 6y ago
A loan shark makes his money literally by feeding off the poor, I don't see how that is not immoral. The moment a proper support system is in place, they'll disappear.
364.
by apta 6y ago
> By falsely representing a _remote_ resource as if it was a _local_ one we open a whole can of worms I've heard this argument before, but how does gRPC itself cause this issue to manifest? I'm curious to hear what your opinion
365.
by apta 6y ago
You agree that loan sharks are immoral, but when banks do the same they're not immoral? It's literally the same behavior, but in a way that is "blessed" by the government (which includes bribery, I mean lobbying). Hopefu
366.
by apta 6y ago
Sketchy or not, they're using the same immoral and parasitic principal to operate. I mentioned in another post how usury is so ingrained in today's financial systems by means of bonds, options, CDs, debt for debt, and so on. It&#x
367.
by apta 6y ago
The bank is using your money to feed off the needy, the bank takes most of it, and gives you a small percentage of the money they made by exploiting them.
368.
by apta 6y ago
So that's a symptom of an underlying cause: the insanity of for profit college prices in the US. Other countries don't have this problem. There's also the obvious solution of giving them loans with 0% interest. Perhaps anothe
369.
by apta 6y ago
Is it not parasitic practice to feed off the needy? When a small player does it, they're called "loan sharks", when bank or the Fed does it, it's "finance".
370.
by apta 6y ago
Because the borrower is out of options, and will have to resort to engaging in an interest based transaction, whereby he is exploited by the lender. It's not really voluntary at that point. Do you think anyone in their right mind wants
371.
by apta 6y ago
If people have nothing for collateral, they're most likely in poverty and should be receivers of charity or other government assistance programs.
372.
by apta 6y ago
You can try to rationalize it in any way you want, however, that does not change the fact that engaging in an interest bearing transaction is parasitic and immoral. > What other mechanism do you suggest for those? Pay in installments wit
373.
by apta 6y ago
Expecting is different from enforcing in the contract, as is the case with interest/usury. As long as the contract allows for a gain or loss (other caveats holding), then it should be fine in general. On a side note, there is no strict
374.
by apta 6y ago
Because it does not exploit people, unlike usury.
375.
by apta 6y ago
Not quite, because usury is deeply ingrained in the system, from bonds to CDs to buying debt for debt, etc. There are many usurious transactions that form the underpinning of the financial system that need to be abolished for things to be f
376.
by apta 6y ago
You can expect returns, but not fix them ahead of time as what people do with interest bearing loans (i.e. usury). Loaning money for money is parasitic and immoral. Investing that can incur a profit or a loss is fine in general.
377.
by apta 6y ago
When I say interest I mean money for money transactions, like savings accounts in banks or bonds where the return is set ahead of time and is practically guaranteed (i.e. usury). Investing is fine since it can incur a gain or loss.
378.
by apta 6y ago
Loaning money should not be done to make money, it's parasitic. It should purely be a charitable contribution without expecting a return. If the loanee decides, out of his or her own goodness to return more money than they took, then t
379.
by apta 6y ago
Interest is one of the main reasons the economic and financial system is in ruins. It is an exploitative, parasitic practice and we've known that for thousands of years. But some people only care about their pockets.
380.
by apta 6y ago
This is why unfettered "free speech" is nonsensical. There have to be bounds at some point.
381.
by apta 6y ago
Good start. Hopefully the rest of the corporations and world governments follow.
382.
by apta 6y ago
Anyone who's worked on a large project and code base will appreciate the features proper mature languages like Java or C# offer. It's ironic that golang was supposedly designed for "programming in the large", but it&#x27
383.
by apta 6y ago
> This is arguably staying within the spirit of the rules (the animal isn't dead when slaughtered, and won't die if you don't slaughter it), but not the letter (in that it's an addition to the prescribed procedure). I
384.
by apta 6y ago
No it doesn't: err := foo() if err != nil {...} err = bar() // accidentally ignored err = baz() if err != nil {...}
385.
by apta 6y ago
Except most libraries do nothing of the sort, so you end up having to do a substring search.
386.
by apta 6y ago
So re-invent exceptions, but in an inferior way.
387.
by apta 6y ago
> This is one of the reasons so many people are calling for Go to get generics. Even if it gets them at some point, the language still needs support for algebraic types, which not surprisingly, the golang authors "don't see it
388.
by apta 6y ago
It seems many people praising golang's error handling have yet to use it in large production projects. It's absolutely horrid dealing with it.
389.
by apta 6y ago
You could also give them money :)
390.
by apta 6y ago
It seems that the military complex in the US is a country-wide employment program paid by taxes.

More ›