> I just said I’ve never heard anyone say they want to abolish the police, which sounds absurd to me.
Well, now you've heard it. And you're right, it sounds absurd. I wish it were satire, but there are people in positions of power here in the U.S. who think this is good policy.
> you really need to have a specific reason to choose something outside of bash/zsh/fish
The reason in question is that not that long ago, people said "you really need to have a specific reason to choose something outside of bash", and people choosing to go off the beaten path lead to zsh and fish becoming powerful and way more popular/well-supported than they were before.
"Popularity" probably has more to do with Apple moving to Zsh than anything else. Zsh has been more powerful than Bash for literally the entirety of the existence of both. It surely was back in like 1993 when I first looked at them. The "emacs of shells" might not be the worst summary.
Fish is a more recent addition, but I hate its `for loop` syntax, seemingly copied from BSD C Shell, which this Ion shell seems to have copied (or maybe Matlab or Julia?). Baffles me to impose a need for `end` statements in 2025. In Zsh, for a simple single command, I need only say `for i in *;echo $i` - about as concise as Python or Nim. In the minimalism aesthetic, Plan 9 rc was nicer even before POSIX even really got going (technically POSIX was the year before Plan 9 rc) for quoting rules if nothing else.
I think it's more insightful to introspect the origins of the "choosing something outside bash" rule you mentioned. I think that comes from generic "stick to POSIX" minimalism where Bash was just the most commonly installed attempt to do only (mostly) POSIX shell.. maybe with a dash of "crotchety sysadmins not wanting to install new shells for users".
Speaking of, the dash shell has been the default on Debian for a long while. So, I think really the rule has always been something "outside POSIX shell", and its origins are simply portability and all those bashisms are still kind of a PITA.
> "Popularity" probably has more to do with Apple moving to Zsh than anything else. Zsh has been more powerful than Bash for literally the entirety of the existence of both. It surely was back in like 1993 when I first looked at them. The "emacs of shells" might not be the worst summary.
It's my impression that Apple switched to zsh because it's permissively licensed, so they could replace the now-ancient last version of bash to use GPLv2 (instead of v3). Obviously it helped that they could replace it with something even more feature-rich, but I expect they would have taken the exact same functionality under a more permissive license.
A lot of my friends are professors or lecturers at universities with "motivationally-diverse" undergraduate populations; LLM-based cheating has become so common that they often reward higher marks to poorly-written papers, just by virtue of them not having been written by *GPT et al.
> The Riemann hypothesis is noteworthy for its appearance on the list of Hilbert problems, Smale's list, the list of Millennium Prize Problems, and even the Weil conjectures, in its geometric guise. Although it has been attacked by major mathematicians of our day, many experts believe that it will still be part of unsolved problems lists for many centuries. Hilbert himself declared: "If I were to awaken after having slept for a thousand years, my first question would be: Has the Riemann hypothesis been proved?"
I am generally open to this idea, but this particular way of defining what bundles are allowed or not seems incredibly weak. Take Adobe's Creative Cloud. There is almost no one in the world who uses all of the tools in it. There are dozens of alternatives made by other companies that only cover a single component software. Adobe is the market leader with virtually all of the component pieces of software. Why is the US not targeting Adobe with antitrust for bundling together tools for typesetters, marketers, video editors, animators, etc, etc?
The only reason is that law enforcement is reactive. And usually requires the tactic to be effective before it does (yes, too late by then).
Which is to say that Adobe can and very well might be targeted in the future for abusing their monopolistic position in image editing market to get people to start using their other tools by bundling them.
Two questions: do Adobe uses their dominant position in one of those markets to influence the clients in another market to use their product? Second, does Adobe's competition wishes to complain? The second part will prioritize the case, I think.
The Republic of Gilead is named for the biblical name "Gilead" for a region in Jordan[0]; the shot is presumably named for the Balm of Gilead[1], also named for biblical Gilead.
Descovy and Truvada are already more commonly referred to by their marketing names than with Gilead’s. Hard to see how this new shot would be different.
At some point the test stopped being fizz buzz and started being "reproduce Brent's cycle detection algorithm from memory or from first principles if you have forgotten what it is", which isn't testing your ability to program in any meaningful way.
i used to ask cycles in a graph. we were building a database, used graphs alot.
if we cant talk about the problem together from first principles and make some progress, and you cant demonstrate that you're tracking the discussion at all then we cant work together on that database.
The alleged rescheduling to Schedule III has yet to pass muster with the White House Office of Management and Budget, so it remains vaporware until then and the scheduling will likely not be changed for months after that.
