What matters for an award is that people recognise it as a prestigious accolade.
The economics prize, while not “official”, is still recognised by everyone in economics as the highest honour in the field. Who cares if it’s “official” or not?
Awards and prizes derive their value from their social recognition, which it has a solid amount of, at the very least.
There is nothing wrong with their connection with dynamite. Nobel designed it to prevent deaths in construction and mining, because nitroglycerine was way too dangerous (and way too useful to be abandoned). It's bad reputation comes from it's use in warfare, which is undeserved because it was not very well suited to that use and was quickly replaced by other solid explosives.
The significance is that it's not a Nobel prize. Saying that is simply formally wrong. It's a prize lobbied in (with a hefty donation) almost 70 years after the establishment, trying to raise the status of Economics as a scientific discipline by basking in the reflected glory of the actual Nobel prizes.
You may not care about the distinction, and if so that's your prerogative, but this Memorial prize in Economics, despite sharing in the festivities, is not in the same category and that's what you keep running into seeing pointed out.
The General Public and Economists hold it in the same regard as other Nobel Prizes so appeal to 'formality' is pointless. The social recognition is the point of these awards so if it has that and is also often called the "Nobel Prize in Economics" then it's a Nobel Prize. They're literally announced and awarded together.
Nobody but a few nitpicks care about your distinction because it's not a real one. Might as well say "Money is not valuable because the material it's made up of has little intrinsic value". Well no, Money is valuable because society has decided it is.
It is also my prerogative not to care about your opinion. You claimed you come across this a lot and don't get it. I just told you. Take it or leave it.
Apologies to NlightNFotis for implicitly accusing you of being the griefer. I replied quickly between other tasks and evidently didn't pay due attention to the username. No misplaced offense intended.
I've recently come across a spectacular number of regressions on my M3 Max MacBook Pro, Sequoia as well as previous versions included.
The most workflow breaking one (which really tempts me to throw the computer out of the closest window I can find in the room) is a Safari bug that basically randomly fails to open any website with a
> Safari can't open the page. The error is: "The operation couldn't be completed. No space left on device" (NSPOSIXErrorDomain:28).
Which is embarrassing, as this is a clear regression and it breaks all functionality in the browser - restarting it doesn't fix it, and I need to restart the whole machine for it to _maybe_ get fixed (and it's not really a space issue, both RAM and disk I'm nowhere near their limits).
Some other things that devs should know about Sequoia:
- If you're sticking to Sonoma for stability, be aware Apple doesn't backport all security patches. Apple's release notes show 79 security issues fixed in Sequoia, and only 37 fixed in Sonoma 14.7. Maybe some vulns were only introduced in the Sequoia betas, but based on previous years, that's mostly not the case. Apple only keeps you safe on the latest version.
> Apple's release notes show 79 security issues fixed in Sequoia, and only 37 fixed in Sonoma 14.7.
Not an Apple fan myself (don't touch the stuff at all) but my first thought there would be to check if the "missing" fixes are for things broken in the new release that don't need fixing in the prior one.
> still includes vulnerable years-old binaries
Are these stock builds, so definitely have the problems you are concerned about, or could there be security updates backported as Debian do with older versions in their stable release?
This is probably misguided. Apple includes the OS version number in the user agent, so an attacker can actually pay to have code delivered only to users with vulnerable versions of MacOS. (advertising marketplaces allow bidding by user agent)
Heya, I couldn’t find a way to contact you privately but I’d assume you want to delete your comment until (presumably) next month! Correct me if I’m wrong tho :)
Alternatively, a mod could help to edit it instead
It’s a product that isn’t officially announced yet. Anyone could mention that they own that device of course, but it’s the extra credibility of him being an ex-Apple SWE (judging from his comments) that convinced me to drop that comment.
Dunno if there could be any legal implications, if not - all good!
I had a very similar issue some time back that was caused by LSP.
Long story short I had multiple long running LSPs (fragmented projects) in Emacs that would open many handlers and keep them open. At some point same error started happening and I thought only restart could resolve it.
But then I was at the hotel where merely switching network made this issue to appear (I suppose binding was somewhat related to and switch made pool exhaust pool quicker) so I decided to debug it.
It turned out that restarting Emacs was enough to close file handlers and resume operations.
The only reason of having a Mac (sorry "real" Mac fans ;) is to be able to test your stuff with MacOS. Especially using Safari and the Iphone and Ipad simulators.
Have same issue. The above solution did not resolve the issue. It doesn't bother me much because I mostly use Firefox, but it causes problems when I'm testing front-end stuff on Safari.
This is a big problem, especially for people new to a field who can't easily tell AI-gen books from human-authored ones.
It also saturates the recommendation system, massively lowering the quality of recommendations that you get for a quality book. This used to be great, because it helped discover other high quality titles. Now, I'm conditioned to automatically skip the list of recs on the basis of it being mostly useless.
"binding" is a PLT term, denoting the association between a name and a value.
It's a higher level concept than the variable - a mutable binding is what people usually refer to as a variable, and an immutable binding is the correct term for what people refer to an "immutable variable" (an oxymoron, if you think about it).
Immutable variable isn't a oxymoron. It can still vary between instantiations. If you have (a)=>{const b = a}, b can have different values even though it can't be reassigned.
In the case of the code that you have cited, these are all different elaborations of the binding at the invocation of the lambda, due to the interplay between activation records and scope rules.
It's not really an "immutable variable" - it's a local binding getting bound to different values on each scope entry.
EDIT: By the way, the `b` binding in your code can be modified. Did you mean `const b = a;` ?
> it's a local binding getting bound to different values
on each scope entry.
It is, I just wanted to point out that the term "immutable variable" is sensible. I think a good way to put it is that b is a variable, and when the statement runs a value is bound to b. So the value bound to b varies yet b can be immutable, in contrast to a constant which is a binding to always the same value.
Fancy seeing this here, some days after finishing the third version :)
I'm also glad to see the asynchronous programming chapter significantly reworked - it was materially weaker than the rest of the book because of some weird analogies involving crows and their nests that didn't seem to make any sort of sense to me.
The third edition also gave me the impression that it was a reasonable book to learn JS and the DOM (and a sprinkle of Node.js, for good measure), but that it was a book aimed primarily at experienced people who were transitioning to JS and the web - not beginners (despite the book's efforts at claiming suitability for beginner programmers).
Sure, you may not have taken away money from Nintendo’s bank account by coercion/force/whatever, but the company and its employees have partaken into an effort to produce something of obvious value to you, for which they are asking for compensation for you to be able to enjoy, and you’re choosing to skirt this understanding so that you can enjoy their work without compensating them for it.
Yeah, you didn’t steal money - you stole their work.
Understand that you’re not entitled to other people’s work, regardless of what they’re asking for it. If you don’t enjoy their stipulations for it, like the hardware they limit their software to run, you’re free to not transact, not steal the work.
Again, it's not stealing if you look at the definition of word stealing. There's a reason it's called piracy not stealing. You are not stealing what those people/company have (the product is still their, the result of their work is still their), you can't steal what they don't have(potential money). It's not stealing per definition.
You still may consider this legal/not legal/moral/immoral and it's ok, each can have their own opinion on this topic and there are different laws in different countries but using word 'stealing' is not correct
Programming with types by Vlad Riscutia fits your bill exactly.
Examples in typescript (so syntax should be familiar compared to e.g OCaml) and teaches you how to model a domain in types and how to think in terms of a type system, instead of diving into the details of how to implement one.
What matters for an award is that people recognise it as a prestigious accolade.
The economics prize, while not “official”, is still recognised by everyone in economics as the highest honour in the field. Who cares if it’s “official” or not?
Awards and prizes derive their value from their social recognition, which it has a solid amount of, at the very least.