Many psychoactives have medium term effects on the brain. Regular marijuana consumption causes memory and attention deficits even when not stoned. That matters.
There is even an argument that caffeine should be restricted in such roles. I certainly wouldn’t want ATC operating on too many energy drinks or coffee.
If we are banning people who take antidepressants, we should also be banning people who take edibles on their day off.
If we are going purely performance-based, then there should be a mandatory cognitive function test before the start of every shift, testing working memory, reaction times, coordination, etc. “sober” is a wide spectrum and encompasses “ate tons of edibles 48 hours ago and came to work on 3 hours of sleep and a five hour energy shot on the way in”.
This is nonsense, it’s obvious what type of safety OP meant. I have no idea what could be irresponsible about not including contrived, ridiculous scenarios.
It’s like saying he also should have accounted for the possibility fairies will turn you into a newt if you edit a gene, or into a rabbit, or if a wizard will turn you into a newt. You can make up an infinite amount of this bs.
Those tend to fall out of the “active use” category not long after entering it, so it’s probably not a big factor.
On a more serious note, had there been something special about SQLite supporting military use of their project that prompted this? Otherwise that’s the point of free software, people are free to do (mostly) whatever they want with it. Including building weapons. SQLite is so prevalent, it’s almost like pointing out you have to include cruise missiles in the count of active x86 chips, or $insert_bad_guy as an active user of roads and electricity.
I'm sure it was picked a long time ago and it's too costly to switch. I imagine any code going into multi-million dollar missile needs to be incredibly audited and understood.
I was just making a funny joke about how it was developed originally for cruise missiles. Though it turns out I was misremembering: it was made for guided missile destroyers. And it makes sense! What a great use case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite#History
As a 20%er who worked on this it’s a bit discouraging to see such a shallow dismissal. A lot of people put in a lot of work as a passion project to keep matrix from just disappearing.
Very impressive. One cool thing you can further do to improve perceived speed potentially at the expense of some bandwidth is to begin to preload pages when a link is hovered. There are a couple of libraries that will do this for you.
It can shave 100 - 200 ms off the perceived load time, and since your site is already near or below that threshold it might end up feeling like you showed the page before anyone even asked for it.
I occasionally use `!` as an escape hatch from the compiler's inability to reason about code correctness. Assert signatures in TS 3.7 will mitigate this issue significantly, but until then, I'm bangin'.
Yeah there are still many flaws in typescript's null checking, even in quite pedestrian code. The ! operator isn't evil, far from it, it exists so that the compiler can be more aggressive at checking nulls knowing that programmers can always override if it makes a mistake. I would never rewrite my code to avoid ! per se, I write it to be most readable to humans, if that doesn't please the compiler then so be it.
That's an interesting discussion, and one that will still keep happening.
At a given point, you can handle errors, but there's nothing you can do about them
It's good when languages (and developers) realize there are errors you should handle but there are errors you "shouldn't" because there's nothing you can do but bail out.
In almost all cases, there's a more appropriate way to indicate your expectations than using force-unwrap.
Even in those cases where you can't recover from a failure of those expectations, your code will be 1000x more legible if you demonstrate that you understand that the error could exist and what it might represent about the system as a whole. If you want to explicitly fire a fatal error after that because there's no other form of recovery, so be it.
Trying to capture all that in a "!" saves you a few LOC (or worse: minutes of reasoning) now but suggests somebody else might be pulling their hair out in frustration six months later. Please don't do that to someone.
I save force unwraps for things that will be caught at develop/testing time, like app images that are supposed to be in the binary or controls that are supposed to be wired up in Interface Builder. Otherwise, for me, using a force unwrap is a code smell.
Not to mention every comment dpower has made is on a post related to Hiri. Maybe HN should just explicitly allow and tag accounts made to promote a company. It makes sense that people who create products want to talk about them, and they can certainly have valuable advice or insights. That might give them a platform to share more without people feeling there's some hidden motive.
I'm a lurker, not a poster for the most part. And as you can see from our blog, we don't write that often. We don't really do content marketing. Any revenue we make as a result of this post certainly won't cover the time I've spent writing it. Hiri is a bit specialist.
Would be happy to tag the posts - think it's pretty clear this is a company blog though. Your point is well taken/made all the same.
Don't take this as me wanting it to happen, but what would it take for the decision to be made to kill these monkeys, and who would make it?
Is there a state or federal agency that's ever determined an animal to be a threat to people in an area to the degree that they then tried to wipe it out? Does it matter that the monkeys got put here because some company thought tourists would like them?
>Is there a state or federal agency that's ever determined an animal to be a threat to people in an area to the degree that they then tried to wipe it out?
In Florida alone that has happened with pythons in the everglades and lionfish in Florida oceans (at least south Florida).
Edit: and African snails. And in a roundabout way mosquitos, but of the lot are not invasive to Florida.
Because the solution is typically implemented with a bounty program which is known to result in the intentional release of more of the invasive species to collect more rewards.
That scenario might have happened with e.g. "wild" hogs, but where are the fraudsters going to get a bunch of non-native monkeys? They aren't available at the local livestock auction...
Based on my visits to my parents down there, and other visits over the years, my tourist slogan for Florida is “The Land of Bad Ideas”. You won’t see it at Disney World, but seems to me that FL attracts folks that tend to not think things through to their conclusion.
So to answer your question: more than you might think.
Florida is the gateway to the America’s. It’s how all these invasive species got here in the first place.
People breed alligators in their bathtubs, release giant pythons. Maybe they don’t need to breed the moneys but do things to support their population growth (kill predators if any, leave food, etc...) or they can breed monkey without the disease. The invasive monkeys did get here and released in the first place after all.
"Is known to"? By who? It sounds like you've read the anecdote about the Cobra Effect and generalized into the conclusion that no bounty system could ever work, which is demonstrably incorrect.
Place a nominal bounty on the monkeys of, say, $50 each and threaten anyone attempting to breed and release the animals for profit with a lifetime jail sentence and the Cobra Effect would not arise.
>It sounds like you've read the anecdote about the Cobra Effect and generalized...
I’d say it sounds like you read about the anecdote and have little first hand experience with these bounty programs in Florida. Whereas I live in south Florida and I am familiar with fraud and failure of these bounty programs with pythons and lion fish...whereas I have seen non-bounty government programs gain ground in the eradication of giant African snails.
Good luck gaining any ground with advocating for life time jail sentences for breeding animals (invasive or otherwise) in Florida. Have any evidence such a program has ever existed?
> Have any evidence such a program has ever existed?
It was an argumentum ad absurdum to demonstrate that with sufficient disincentives to cheating, the "Cobra Effect" might be effectively countered - in reply to your questionable claim that any and all bounty program "is known" to not work, as if that's some sort of law of physics.
I'm not familiar with the failed python and fish programs you mention, but I'll take your word for it that they were implemented so incompetently and supervised so inadequately that fraudulent breeding for profit took place. That said, I'd believe almost anything about Southern Florida and perhaps you're right that it's not the ideal place for a government program requiring tight control and a deft touch.
Having read the article - there's only 200 monkeys and they're all pretty localized to one place - I don't see the problem with the government simply doing it themselves, so I agree somewhat, but still take issue with your generalizations. Bounty programs are known to be unworkable, in South Florida, with snakes and fish. That's it. Oh, and in possibly-apocryphal British India.
I don’t see why a bounty wouldn’t work in this case either. Certainly would cost more than $50 to raise a monkey to kill for bounty, when the entire bounty pool would be barely $20k.
I doubt you need to even give a bounty though, just open them for hunting. Better yet give out a commemorative plaque.
Ah yes the old “it’s not a Law of physics arguement”, clearly that is the fairest interpretation of my comment and the verbiage “known to”. After all “Known to” is only “known to” be used as an absolute in the sense of the laws of physics. That is quite the self-defining circular logic when I think about it.
Obviously your make believe hypothetical implementation of a bounty program backed by breeding and release crimes punishable by life imprionsment, render my statement false because I said “known to”, whereas bounty programs in fact are not “known to” increase invasive species and result in failure - despite the only three real world examples used (two of which were in the same state). You are right it is not a law of physics, thus rendering any point moot based on your hypothetical, whereas $50 bounty programs per animal backed by life inprisonment crimes are “known to” succeed when the animal is in central Florida and is a monkey.
> Why keep around an invasive species that carries a deadly virus?
They’re not invasive, and not a single person in history has died from being bitten by a wild monkey with herpes b despite thousands of people being bitten per year.
I was using the term "invasive" as non-native, but I suppose this is misusing the word since they are not actively harmful and nobody will probably get herpes from them.
I certainly would want it to happen if I lived there. I like all sorts of wildlife, but introducing invasive species is not something to be taken lightly.
Perhaps it's something for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to consider? They seem to be the one in charge of Burmese Python control in the Everglades.
There are a few promising technologies in the works though.
The helicase-primase inhibitor Pritelivir is more effective than Acyclovir and related nucleoside analogues. It is also understood that the efficacy of both drugs accumulates.
A few labs are working on CRISPR therapeutics for HSV, most notably Keith Jerome's work at Fred Hutch.
Another company, Phylogica, are taking a different approach. I'm not exactly sure of the mechanism.
n.b. If anyone here suffers from HSV (statistically, many of you do), consider ordering Pritelivir from Japan. It is marketed under the brand Amenalief, and it's for a different strain of HSV so you would be taking it off-label. Usual disclaimers apply; I'm neither a doctor, nor a lawyer, nor responsible for what you do.
I'd pay a pretty penny for a cure, or total suppression of transmission.
It's not life altering in any way besides the fact that HSV2 has such a strong stigma in the US and tends to turn away a non insignificant number of romantic partners. From a health perspective, I had a rash once in my life and basically entirely forgot about even having it (outside of taking 800mg of Acyclovir every day), but from a social perspective, it adds a 50-70% chance that someone will turn you down. Dating is non-trivial already, adding another 2/3 dropoff to your dating life is no joke. On the plus side, it was nice to see a show like Adam Ruins Everything cover the issue to try to dispel some of the stigma, but I suspect that it will not be addressed within my lifetime.
Additionally, in the state of California it's a well known way to shake down people of wealth. I always disclose my status before getting intimate, as required by law, but I also need to make sure that I have your consent somewhere in writing. Otherwise later you can claim that you were never told, you got the virus, and it's my fault, and now you're entitled to restitutions for the stress and damages to your lifestyle. It becomes a he said vs she said and practically a coin toss that decides if you are to part ways with anything between $100k to a few million. You always think "Is this person going to be the one who decides to use me to make a buck?". My legal counsel always advises that a new partner send me an email consenting to the risks she would be exposing herself to by engaging in intercourse.
If that's not romance at its finest, I don't know what is.
You're ignoring how life-altering it becomes as one ages and the immune system declines.
I've had elderly relatives down with shingles, caused by the herpes virus, for months. Their shingles being a very latent reappearance of Chickenpox acquired in childhood. These viruses are opportunistic, and you will grow weaker in time, if you don't die first.
The stigma, in this case, is appropriate in my opinion.
It surprises me how cavalier everyone has been about HPV and Chickenpox throughout my lifetime. At least we've finally appreciated how HPV causes most cervical cancers and have developed routine immunization there. We badly need to develop Herpes vaccines. I'm confident once we have them, it will conveniently become "discovered" that HSV has been quietly responsible for some prolific form of suffering like Alzheimers and/or Parkinsons all this time.
I don't think anybody's claiming that having HSV is better than not having HSV, but the fact is that it's incredibly common. It's been with us for millennia and it's not going anywhere until medicine and technology figure out a way to wipe it out. To quote herpes.com stats:
> By the time they're teenagers or young adults, about 50% of Americans have HSV-1 antibodies in their blood. By the time they are over age 50, some 80-90% of Americans have HSV-1 antibodies.
And this is HSV1 alone. You add HSV2 to it and, I believe according to some stats, you end up with 80% of the world population having some variation of it. Stigmatizing 4 out of 5 people in the world makes no sense and is helping nobody. You can't avoid getting it, unless you never interact with another human being, and treating others like broken goods until you become one too (because it IS only a matter of time) is inhumane.
On a related note, I believe the majority of the stigma comes from HSV2, which I'm sure has much more to do with sexual morality than with medicine. Nobody blinks an eye if you have its oral counterpart, you go to CVS and buy a Blistex. However, if you have the genital version, now THAT is a problem. Same virus, vastly different reaction.
> It's not life altering in any way besides the fact that HSV2 has such a strong stigma <snip>...
It is potentially quite life-altering, and you may agree with me after you're over 60 years old. If you instead asserted "it hasn't been life-altering in any way so far besides..." then I wouldn't have replied at all.
Adding a persistent genital herpes outbreak to six months of shingles in old age qualifies as life-altering in my book.
Your comment comes across as if everyone should get over it and not exclude partners infected with genital herpes from their intimate lives, that this stigma exists just because it's associated with sex.
Nobody wants to be infected with any form of the herpes virus, the variants of which will cumulatively add life-altering complications when your immune system deteriorates. Genital herpes is appropriately highly stigmatized because it has the most potential for effective prevention through avoidance.
Choice of sexual partner is already culturally accepted as a highly discrimatory exercise, it basically goes unnoticed for the uninfected population to exclude those infected with genital herpes from their sex lives, it's not like the uninfected end up without sufficient available partners as a result. It has zero impact on their daily goings on. Compare that to the futility of stigmatizing Chickenpox however, the difference seems obvious.
In the other commenter's defence, HSV is not life-altering for most people. IIRC, most people who carry HSV experience no symptoms (although that may not take into account the potential risk for Alzheimers later).
For a not-insignificant minority, HSV is life-altering. Both for the reasons you've mentioned, and also for increased instance of suicide, and increased risk of infant mortality if the mother is experiencing an outbreak during birth.
>I'm confident once we have them, it will conveniently become "discovered" that HSV has been quietly responsible for some prolific form of suffering like Alzheimers and/or Parkinsons all this time.
Not sure if you were making reference to a specific belief, but there's already some evidence that HSV1 may be part of the Alzheimer's cause puzzle [1].
A source for what, that people's immune systems weaken as they age?
WRT Herpes Simplex recurrence in particular: "Causes of recurrence may include: decreased immune function, stress, and sunlight exposure." [1]
This isn't unique to Herpes, if you have HPV it's going to be an increasing nuisance with age. A major component of what makes growing old awful is everything your immune system kept in check slowly consumes you.
This is common, or at least, I've definitely had my parents do this for me, and I know my friends have too.
The logic is as follows: I need to be up early, my parents always get up early, and my alarm almost always works. If I have both to wake me up, there's a good chance I won't accidentally sleep in.
This is rewarding bad behavior. The offspring should be conditioned to awaken themselves by having an unpleasant experience occur when they don't awaken when expected.
Nobody wants to avoid the behavior when punishment is introduced, they want to avoid the punishment itself. Typically speaking, this is done by circumventing the punishment, rather than correcting the behavior. Besides, (almost) nobody purposely sleeps through their final - especially not if they take the time to ask someone to be a backup alarm. You'd be advocating for punishment of an accident at that point, which is aggressively useless at best, and sadistic at worst.
I'm pretty sure the consensus is that positive reinforcement, when used consistently and over a long time, can be used without any negative reinforcement and still get the requisite training results. That's leaving aside the fact that negative reinforcement is bad for the relationship with your child and/or pet.
Completely on this subject though, I find the behaviour in question here insane. Mostly because adults are supposed to be independent and competent. Of course, not everyone is raised equally. If this works for them, who are we to judge?
I recently decided to wake up earlier (have kids, wanted an hour or so to myself before they woke up), so I started going to get earlier. Instead of an alarm in the morning, I have an alarm at night so I remember to go to bed on time.
For something as important as a final, you should be getting a full night's rest. It's just not worth whatever little you can cram in the night before.
I’d prefer my ATC has a cup of coffee if they want it.
Aside from that, what does what happens in their off hours matter provided they’re coming to work sober?