winstonewert

10 ms·

61.
by winstonewert 4y ago
> that does not depend on whitespace This is precisely one of my complaints against XML, it does depend on whitespace. In JSON, I know that any excess formatting whitespace can safely be removed. But excess formatting whitespace is part
62.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Your short term suggestion appears confused. Panics are already the result of runtime checks. The issue isn't whether or not we have runtime checks, but what to do when those checks fail. But to your original point, its true that a mul
63.
by winstonewert 4y ago
What features have been removed from Python?
64.
by winstonewert 4y ago
No, they don't deliberately omit the part of the quote. They are either unaware of that part of the quote or don't think it matters to the point they are making. Yes, if you quote Knuth here (whether the short quote or a longer ve
65.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Yes, it true, if you use Python you can rewrite portions in C to get improved performance. But my point was rather that you couldn't later decide you should have written the entire project in another language like Rust or C++ or Java o
66.
by winstonewert 4y ago
I would note that the choice of programming language is a bit different. Projects are pretty much locked into that choice. You've got to decide upfront whether the trade off in a rapid prototyping language is good or not, not wait unti
67.
by winstonewert 4y ago
I don't know about that. Even with your programming language/infrastructure you still want to identify the slow bits and optimize those. At the end of the day, you only have a certain amount of bandwith for optimization, and you w
68.
by winstonewert 4y ago
The thing is, when I see people using this quote, I don't see them generally using it to mean you should never optimize. I think people don't ignore the premature bit in general. Now, throwing this quote out there generally doesn&
69.
by winstonewert 4y ago
> You should probably read the full context around that quote, I'm sick and tired of everyone repeating it mindlessly: I'm confused. What do you think the context changes? At least as I read it, both the short form and full con
70.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Well, you do have a choice, you could move to a lower tax jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions provide different trade-offs in terms of the tax burdens and services rendered. You can move to a jurisdiction that provides your preferred trad
71.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Where did anyone anywhere in this thread claim that you could "represent sql null in a way that can't go wrong?" Yes, Rust options explode if you unwrap a None. But that's explicitly what `unwrap()` does. It a big improv
72.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Oh, I see. I think you are right.
73.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Such optimizations can't be transparent in python (at least not easily) because you could very well reassigned everything in `operator` to do whatever you want. PyPy can do it with its jit because it supports invalidating compiled code
74.
by winstonewert 4y ago
The example given mentions voting for parties, but doesn't give explicit indication how this works. Are the votes directly for parties or for candidates from those parties? It doesn't say. I suspect that you see it as explicitly t
75.
by winstonewert 4y ago
I was drawn to STV in the past because I liked the level of control it gave voters, having them expresses preferences over parties and candidates. But now I'm more inclined to agree that its too complicated. I don't think that the
76.
by winstonewert 4y ago
You are right, it's not quite as simple as proportionality solving everything.
77.
by winstonewert 4y ago
As I read the above example, it leaves it undefined which proportional system is in place. As such, the statement is strictly incorrect, because it makes a general statement which isn't true of proportional systems generally.
78.
by winstonewert 4y ago
> Only one vote counts. This is literally the textbook example of a system than fails the non-dictatorship criterion. This depends on how you state the non-dictatorship criterion. Wikipedia's discussion refers to a "single pre-
79.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Sure, approval voting is easy if you don't care about making effective use of your vote. If you want to make effective use of your vote, you've got to make calls about supporting you people you dislike, but don't dislike as m
80.
by winstonewert 4y ago
I think an additional neat property is that the representation of a particular district would be proportional in time. I.e. 40% red, 60% blue district would be represented by a red member 40% of the time and a blue member 60% of the time.
81.
by winstonewert 4y ago
If used to elect something like a president, yeah, that could be problematic. But if used to elect a legislative body then its not really a problem. Sure 1% of the body would be pro-dictatorship, and occasionally a bit more due to the rando
82.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Honestly, I'm not sure. Pick-one, winner-take-all is pretty bad. Approval voting might be slightly better in some ways, but I'm not sure its better enough to make up for being just a little bit more strategically complicated.
83.
by winstonewert 4y ago
I don't really get the love that approval voting gets. Approval voting requires the voter to decide whether or not to approve the lesser of two evils. It seems to me that this isn't a simple question it depends on the odds of diff
84.
by winstonewert 4y ago
This isn't actually the case. See either STV or MMP which allow the combination of proportionality and voting for individual candidates.
85.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Yes, but actually no. Gerrymandering is an issue precisely because of winner take all. In a proportional system the definition of districts (if they exist at all) doesn't have the same effect on the outcome of the election. In fact, th
86.
by winstonewert 4y ago
If one landlord raises the rent, this will tend to make renters go to other landlords who are not raising the rent. But if the taxes are increased on all the landlords, they will likely all raise their rents together and renters can't
87.
by winstonewert 4y ago
Re point 2, really?
88.
by winstonewert 4y ago
People despise traitors because they pretend to be on one side while actually working for another. That's why Benedict Arnold is despised and Lee is not. Lee may turned against the Federal government, but he never pretended to be on a
89.
by winstonewert 4y ago
There a lot of other famous Roberts and Davids, to dilute any negative connotation associated with Robert E. Lee and David Duke. Benedict has a lot less dilution powers. Furthermore, most people don't care or know about David Duke and
90.
by winstonewert 5y ago
Most people would agree with you. That's why pretty much every government has the ability to engage in eminent domain or compulsory purchase to take private property for the "greater good." So, whatever is responsible for the

More ›