Honestly the main reason it works like this is that it was my first foray into Rust, and I found JSON parsing a bit of a pain, whereas matching status codes was very simple. If we expand it to return different options in the future then I'll probably rework it.
I think I was having trouble with string lifecycles due to how I was doing something, and at the time I didn't understand them (I'm still not super sharp on it if I'm honest) and just opted to take an easy way out. Lifecycle notation might be the one bit of Rust I find ugly, actually.
I should really revisit this little program at some point, but it's so stupidly simple and works so reliably that I haven't had the inclination to yet.
The world of the future is software. We're on the slow and exciting path of better and better digital representations of reality... everything from cheap orientation sensors to ADCs that were in the realm of science fiction a few years ago.
The same is gradually happening with things like batteries, motors, etc. Everything is becoming more standardized and more like software.
The current limitations have to do with both physics and engineering, and also software reliability, but those barriers are all receding. Solar Cell roof shingles are an idea likely had by many kindergarteners, but the genius has to do with making a longer-term bet and creating the financing to make it into a viable business in a world that rewards short-term results.
The important thing is that a Billionaire today can make a bigger impact than a superpower government could a decade ago. The glorification of the bygone era of massive infrastructure investment voiced by Thiel at the GOP convention can be alternately viewed as a wish that we had more Musks taking big gambles and a general cynicism about the tech elite who develop cults of personality after a single, largely luck-driven, often low-tech home run.
The Interstate highway system was a buildout that could happen because of the solving of coordination problems that had prevented escape from a local maximum. As governments lose relevance, it is up to the Musks of the world to usher in both the technological vision and the social coordination solutions.
How would you define ideology? As a person's current set of beliefs? Or as a set of vehemently held beliefs?
Argument is the process of applying logic to a set of ideas. It is based on the premise that logic alone can yield insights and both participants try to use logic to point out fallacies in their opponent's arugment.
If you believe that ideology is someone's current set of beliefs, then ideology is not threatening, as you have a good shot of changing someone's ideology through logic and argumentation.
However, if you believe that ideology is a dogma that someone viciously clings to, then there is no reason to bother arguing, as it could never result in the person conceding a point or changing an opinion.
I the former definition applies to most intelligent people.
In my case, all of my beliefs are provisional. I don't know anything for certain, but I may still engage in argument. I won't necessarily preface the argument with an in-depth acknowledgement of all of the holes I see in the beliefs at hand. Instead, I will see how well they stand up to my opponent's assaults. After all, I've already admitted to myself that they have holes, so now before I abandon them I should give them one last stand to see how they do.
A successful argument is one in which a) I discover more holes, or b) I realize that something I thought was a hole isn't.
Logical argument is quite unlike javascript where there are obvious ways of empirically testing a result. In the more abstract areas of programming there are massive arguments (see LKML, etc.) because it is hard to simply empirically test the result... the concepts are abstract and interwoven, etc.
To read the arguments on LKML, one sees that they are more socratic, more focused on the abstractions and hence are more subject to "ideology" being used rather than simple assertions.
So if you dismimss "ideology" as necessarily uninformed, you are asserting your own "ideology" onto the discussion.
What is a non-ideological argument? Is it something like this?
Person 1: I can't be sure, but I think there is a chance that A
Person 2: I see. I agree that there is a chance that A, but I think there is a greater chance that B.
Person 1: We both make good points.
Person 2: Indeed.
While the above may be an abundantly mature way to address A and B, I find a spirited argument far more informative. For the same reason, I find that it's easier to learn about the nuances of a political issue by reading op-eds written from various perspectives than from reading one supposedly objective "news" article.
Could be, but its probably also a cultural thing. Most Americans don't view oral sex as sexual contact, and yet, most STIs are transmittable from it. This, alongside sexual education in schools that focuses on that 1% (used correctly) failure rate of condoms and lack of hard scientific evidence it will prevent the spread of HPV, leading them to think "condoms are unreliable, so why bother?" has led to a thriving youth culture of unprotected oral sex...and later, when they become sexually active, unprotected sex.
And it just so happens one of the primary ways women catch HSV-2 is through a partner infecting them orally. There are "virgins" getting herpes in America.
Now, again, culturally, I've been told that Aussie men are incredibly chauvinistic, so maybe a smaller percentage is likely to engage in oral sex. I'm generalizing and speculating here , so take it with a grain of salt. In the UK, the sex education could be better. From talks with my friends from southern states, it seems you'd have to deliberately try to do worse.
Just to add a little elucidation to the sex-ed thing, the places that don't focus on abstinence as the only technique don't really explain the numbers. That's a 1% chance that after a year of regular sexual intercourse. Which makes the per-use numbers much, much smaller.
Furthermore, there was at least some issue in that many doctors were more conservative, and didn't really like talking about oral sex. (I heard this from a doctor who was complaining about this).
"Let me make my own point of view clear - it is that the only position tenable from a viewpoint of strict empiricism is that the existence or non-existence of God are equally un-disprovable."
So then why, if God exists and created humans and made humans rational, should anyone believe that God exists? Was rationality something God intended only that humans overcome? Or did he intend for us to use it some of the time? Most of the time? Not at all? The existence of rationality poses the biggest explanatory challenge to someone who views the poster's two options as being equally probable yet chooses to believe in God anyway.
That would be the better design. No need to overload an HTTP status code meant only to indicate transport status.