https://medium.com/codex/stop-using-kwargs-as-method-argumen...
http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/on-kwargs.html
Give me another one.
https://medium.com/codex/stop-using-kwargs-as-method-argumen...
http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/on-kwargs.html
Give me another one.
Say you seized the entirety of Elon Musk’s assets: that could pay for a year and a half of the Dept of Transportation. Say you seized all the wealth (somehow) of the world’s 100 richest people. That’s 2 years of US non-discretionary spending (social security, Medicare and Medicaid). I often see comments that assume all problems could be solved by just taxing the rich more, but I just don’t think that’s true.
The Nordic countries pay for their social safety nets by taxing the middle class more heavily than we do in the US. If you want to change that, it’s less about capital vs labor, and more about your dentist vs labor (dentists be the classic example of jobs that earn high incomes without being “capital owners”).
"Write a history of the Greek language but reverse it, so that one would need to read it from right to left and bottom to top."
ChatGPT wrote the history and showed absolutely no awareness, let alone, "understanding" of the second half of the prompt.
civilization Mycenaean the of practices religious and economic, administrative the into insights invaluable provides and B Linear as known script the in recorded was language Greek the of form attested earliest The
If they came to the judge and said “an informant said we’ll find the gun here” and the informant was actually Clearview, thats obviously a problem.
Guix is also a distro that allows for any number of versions of the same package globally, something that language specific dependancy managers do not.
Distors are there for a reason, and anyone who doesn't understand that reason is just another contributor to the ongoing collapse of the tower of abstractions we've built.
Distros (and the people who run most scales of IT org) want to be able to deploy and verify that the fix is in place - and its a huge advantage if it's a linked library that you can just deploy an upgrade for.
But if it's tons and tons of monolithic binaries, then the problem goes viral - every single one has to be recompiled, redeployed etc. And frequently at the cost of "are you only compatible with this specific revision, or was it just really easy to put that in?"
It's worth noting that docker and friends also while still suffering from this problem, don't quite suffer from it in the same way - they're shipping entire dynamically linked environments, so while not as automatic, being able to simply scan for and replace the library you know is bad is a heck of a lot easier then recompiling a statically linked exe.
People are okay with really specific dependencies when it's part of the business critical application they're supporting - i.e. the nodejs or python app which runs the business, that can do anything it wants we'll keep it running no matter what. Having this happen to the underlying distributions though?
(of note: I've run into this issue with Go - love the static deploys, but if someone finds a vulnerability in the TLS stack of Go suddenly we're rushing out rebuilds).
What I'm specifically suggesting is:
* Distributions package *binaries*, but not the individual libraries that those binaries depend on.
* Distributions mirror all dependencies, so that you can (in principle) have a completely offline copy of everything that goes into the distribution. Installing a binary uses the language-specific install tools to pull dependencies, targeting the distribution's mirror.
* Enough dependency tracking to know what needs to be rebuilt if there's a security update.
* Any outside dependencies (e.g openssl) will continue to depend on whatever the distribution packages.
* Dependencies are not globally installed, but use whatever isolation facilities the language has (so e.g, a venv for python, whatever npm does)
You can tax business at home by land/revenue/resources usage/ip protection taxes. As it is owners in different jurisdictions pay a different (or sometimes no) tax on selling shares. Selling itself is something you want to encourage, not discourage. It's a pointless tax that penalizes exactly the things you want to encourage.
You think that someone moving to Portugal to avoid it is unfair but then a share holder living in 0 cap gain jurisdiction in the first place would pay 0 anyway.