Google and Apple just updated the name of an international body of water based on the demand of a single person throwing his weight around. No one asked for this change. It has no backing by locals. It wasn’t even a thing. This wasn’t a culture war issue, it’s a flexing of power by an old delusional man. AP has been the only corporate organization to stand up to this nonsense that I’ve seen.
Not to mention the cdc scrubbing and such that judges are now overturning and demanding information returned to the public.
A great example of the many system abuses over the past several weeks.
People did not vote for the Dark Enlightenment nor the Butterfly Revolution. Want to gut USAID? Work with Congress and pass a law. Want to strip Social Security? Samesies.
That is the rule of law. If you are a representative of the people, you follow the law.
Of all the wrong things Trump/Musk are doing , renaming the Gulf was arguably the most benign. But it does send a powerful signal of “I can do whatever the f I want”
are you sure about that? it makes it so that he can approve drilling in the gulf because it's not named the same. or at least that's his idea to subvert biden's drilling ban... we'll see if it is the case.
interesting; hadn't thought of that angle. but he could just do an EO to reverse the drilling ban, as he did with Alaska. I don't think he needs to rename the gulf of Mexico to accomplish that.
I mean, I guess it's possible they've been really busy with other stuff and are just now looking at the internet after some kind of six-month death march at work. (but probably not likely)
Please state explicitly for the record why it's timely, in order that anyone who cares can compare that reason against the posting guidelines to decide how seriously to take it.
.
A bit wordier, but hopefully harder to denounce on the pretext that it's playing dumb.
> In 2002, during a press briefing about the Iraq War, Donald Rumsfeld famously divided information into four categories: known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns. These distinctions became the basis for the Rumsfeld Matrix, a decision-making framework that maps and evaluates the various degrees of certainty and uncertainty.
What gave you the impression I was assuming bad faith? It's off topic to the discussion (which is fine) but can be annoying in the middle of an HN thread.
Without offering any opinion on its merits, if you think justifying this controversial claim is off topic, then so is the claim and you shouldn't have written it.
You said, "I would guess you're not asking a serious question here," which is to say, you were guessing that the question was asked in bad faith. Or, at any rate, you would, if for some reason the question came up, for example in deciding how to answer it. Which is what you were doing. That is to say, you did guess that it was asked in bad faith. Given the minimal amount of evidence available (12 words and a nickname "__Joker") I think it's reasonable to describe that guess as an assumption. Ergo, you were assuming bad faith.
This is correct. Greenspun's Tenth Rule is not meant to be interpreted as applying to projects that are consciously creating a Lisp implementation. It's about programs which are not meant to be language implementations at all reinventing ad hoc infrastructure that is designed in Lisps according to established patterns. For instance, badly reinventing something that functions as symbols.
If you are creating Lisp because you want to create Lisp, like creating Lisp, want to show off creating Lisp, that obviously is not what the Law is about.
Furthermore, if you create Lisp because you know the Law, know it is inevitable, and want to avoid the caveats and missed bars by doing so explicitly, well then that also is not what the Law is about.
But if you are going about your business, focused on your independent goal, realize you need Lisp like lists, and then 250 lines of code later realize you have created a solid Lisp unintentionally? Well, congrats on falling into the trap but not getting hurt!
—
Personally, I have created both Lisp and Forth multiple times for suitable projects where I wanted some flexible runtime scripting. I am not familiar with the standard version libraries of either and don’t need them.
Minimal foundation implementations are extremely easy to create, and eliminate any dependencies or sources of mystery.
Anyone know of any other well designed mininal languages?
The corollary to Greenspun’s rule is that any sufficiently complicated Common Lisp program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Prolog.
While objcopy can do many things, it can't undo the work of the linker. If relocations aren't unapplied and a new relocation table generated, these spots inside the new object file will reference the original program's address space, leading to some exotic undefined behavior.
Delinking is a subject with very few resources online, but there are a couple of other tools for it out there:
This is so cringe.
reply