Readit NewsDeleted Comment
Deleted Comment
That's not the case in the lower Colorado basin. If it was, there would not be a problem.
Deleted Comment
> Wave goodbye to $13,000 worth of scarce water that was sold to agribusiness for just $1,000 and is now headed overseas on that truck
Actually there is only about $0.65 worth of water headed overseas on that truck because while it takes 5 or 6 acre feet of water to grow an acre of alfalfa only 0.005% of that water actually ends up in the part of the plant that is harvested and ends up on that truck.
Where does the other 99.995% end up? I have no idea because every single article I've seen about water use in agriculture fails to cover what happens to that water.
All I've been able to find is that almost all of it goes into the air around the farms via evapotranspiration. But what happens after that?
It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow
Like, that woman literally lied in court, causing you financial, psychological and image damage, couldn't you have sued for this? Theoretically speaking, I'm saying.
Like in my case I have pretty conclusive proof that part of her allegation is a lie. And that makes her look sufficiently bad that she's wiling to drop the whole thing.
But if I now tried to sue her, she'd naturally have to revert to asserting her allegations were true in the first place. But only she made some mistakes when remembering the details (oh sorry, wrong event! Trauma!). And I believe I would look vindictive and aggressive, and my real concrete proof is that one part of her allegation is a lie.
For me, it's 10000x easier to just count my blessings than personally consider anything of the sort. I only once briefly entertained the idea just to tarnish her own reputation to the point she would never be able to falsely accuse anyone again.
Anyway, presented with the actual recording she dropped the entire thing and yet managed to have absolutely zero personal or professional repercussions.
I was once personally on the receiving end of a complete false sexual harassment allegation from a coworker almost at random (someone I had almost no interactions with, ever). There wasn't even a sprinkle of truth in the whole thing. I was saved by pure dumb luck, where against all odds just happened to have irrefutable proof one of their claims was impossible which led to her dropping the whole thing. I'm still a bit jaded that there are absolutely zero repercussions of making false claims.
I guess I feel like "Innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty good model and running a story just amplifying one persons unproven claims kind of goes against that.
Why not support old features of the language in the new version of the compiler/interpreter? This seems to be particularly feasible in Lisp/Scheme family of languages due to the fact that ASTs are edited directly in source code.
For example, each library declares its target version of the compiler, then newer compiler first translates the library to new syntax, then integrates it with other dependencies.
What's wrong with this line of thought?
So let's assume there was wide spread consensus that it's a terrible idea and it should work like every other programming language. There is really no obvious way to simply "convert to the new syntax"? And trying to have "go with nil interfaces" library interact with "go with normal type system" would be it's own can of worms.
Like in this case, the only realistic path I could see would be you deprecate it, then you start warning, and then in like 10 years or something you fully remove it?