Thought experiment on funding models for dating sites, assuming omniscience (exclusively regarding relationship longevity, and success rate of services):
- Monthly: Incentives variable, but generally low quality results (for slot machine psychology.)
- For each match/hookup/"real" relationship: Incentives results that produce relationships that last exactly long enough to be considered a match/hookup/"real" relationship.
- One-time upfront: Incentivize finding the best available candidate ASAP in order to save server costs.
- Monthly, cost propositional to success rate: Optimizing for some specific length of relationship that someone calculated to be optimal.
There are most likely other funding possibilities, and I've most likely misunderstood some rule of economics. Note that none of these optimize specifically for happiness in relationships, only for longevity.
Remember, states (and multistates) are large collections of people. The people who are negotiating the contracts with companies are most likely several steps removed from the people who are making laws.
The word "predictable" implies "deterministic", but they are not identical. The universe can be governed by strong deterministic laws, while being too complex to simulate and thus predict.
This poses some difficult questions for science, given that most science up to now has been about predicting something, trying it and checking whether theory and practice matches.
Right, but I took the comment in the OP to mean that non-Newtonian physics makes things 'non-deterministic', even is we leave aside the practicality of simulating the universe at the molecular (or smaller?) level.
Having lived in Denmark for 20 years, I find this in many ways reprehensible. Cooking down the complex geopolitical problem of whether to sell a large piece of territory (with people!) to exclusively monetary concerns.
This is as culturally daft as asking "why is Ireland such a problem for Brexit? Just build a wall!"
As a Dane, I agree. Why don’t the US sell the Rust Belt to China? If people had any idea how much of the danish kingdom is already lost over the centuries, one would understand why the country will cling to the last remnants for no other reason that maintaining national cohesion.
While I see your point but as a person living in Denmark I can't help but consider the
> national cohesion
to Greenland and Faroe Islands for that matter to be minimal. It doesn't feel like "proper" Denmark with shipping more expensive, not being part of EU/Schengen, their own respective Kroner-like currencies. I know some Faroese coming to Denmark to study but that's about it. It is not comparable to the rust belt which is more comparable to eastern Germany, more to the Dutch Carribbean which similarly has probably minimal national cohesion with the Netherlands.
In a way it is like with Iceland. That ship has sailed and over time both Faroe Islands and Greenland will break away too, to hardly any change for people living in Denmark. I think Denmark will wish them well for their future endeavors and that chapter of colonialism will finally be closed.
As a Dane with Faeroese and Greenlandic friends, I consider them all as brother peoples, just like Swedes and Norwegians. Different in some ways, but connected by a common thread.
I'm really conflicted at this. I do not want the internet to be censored, but at the same time, I think that big internet companies are making the world worse through inaction.
Even if a user or $/yr minimum is implemented in law, then what happens as distributed and federated technology becomes more common? What does Mastadon or Scuttlebutt count as?
I don't see the difference between this and any other Context-Free Grammar specification language. Yacc is an industry standard, and even SNOBOL4 (1967) had first-class CFG datatypes. Maybe he's just excited about being able to use CFGs in the cmdline?
Slightly related: Lua will intern every string ever created, that is two strings are equal if and only if their pointers (as represented internally) are identical. This results in slow string creation, but very fast equality checking and lookups, as it converts the problem to comparing integers.
I haven't read the article, but one reason may be the unappetizing portrail. The photographs in this article are bleak and chaotic, in sharp contrast to the colorful and organized way food is depicted nowadays.
Unrelated, I've encountered energy bars with an insect: Standard energy bars, but extra expensive and with minuscule amounts of insect. Selling cheap eco-friendly insects as an expensive "cool" gimmick is a cruel sort of irony.
I'm with you on Functional Languages being solid and useful, I've done quite a lot of work in Standard ML, but the parent's point wasn't only do it for the education, it was at least do it for the education.
What non-indented markup languages gain by avoiding indentation, they lose in succinctness. What is the difference between a section, a list, and a field set? When would I use one instead of another?
If your aim is data representation, why not go for JSON, Lua table-notation or S-expressions? These do not need different syntax for sections, lists or field sets, but have very clear syntax for a few primary data structures, which you can them compose however you want.
section vs. list in eno is like object vs. array in JSON - you need both.
eno has neither indentation nor closing tags of any sort, that means if you use a section to group some values, you need to start another section to end the previous one (no closing tags!), that's why there are fieldsets, which allow short groupings that automatically end with the next field/list/fieldset.
I share your opinion that a single syntax would be the ideal thing, but not having closing tags (which keeps the language simple and fast to write) required a trade-off in the language design to be made.
Why not JSON, Lua table-notation or S-expressions? Because the prime design goal was to achieve greatest possible simplicity and accessibility - almost anyone should be able to use it, no matter the background. If possible I would have wanted eno to be even more reduced and simple, but at some point you have to draw a line too, otherwise you end up with a toy, and then you won't ever get adoption by devs either. So this is why eno ... :) Thanks for your question!
- Monthly: Incentives variable, but generally low quality results (for slot machine psychology.)
- For each match/hookup/"real" relationship: Incentives results that produce relationships that last exactly long enough to be considered a match/hookup/"real" relationship.
- One-time upfront: Incentivize finding the best available candidate ASAP in order to save server costs.
- Monthly, cost propositional to success rate: Optimizing for some specific length of relationship that someone calculated to be optimal.
There are most likely other funding possibilities, and I've most likely misunderstood some rule of economics. Note that none of these optimize specifically for happiness in relationships, only for longevity.