Remember, in other countries, especially eastern ones, the recommendation of even your local city means allot. There is a deeper trust of government bodies so this will likely have an impact.
And starting small is probably good, lets the idea iterate before rolling it out wider and this often comes down to making a choice, this city just thought this would be best and I suspect unless this goes horribly wrong it will help
I live in the 23 wards of Tokyo and certainly do. The local governments in other countries I've lived seem to just take and give very little back (while paying their unelected c-suite ridiculous salaries), but ours has given us thousands over the years for child related expenses.
Your child related expenses are not “given”, other taxpayers have paid for it. And for them, they have very little given back, if we factor in very high tax load in Japan.
Just because someone ride the wave of payouts for kids doesn’t mean government is giving back a lot. Japanese government, just like any other government out there, extremely inefficient and corrupt, absorbing huge amounts of money in taxes and giving very little back. Particularly to those who actually earn those money.
Having a base level of trust in your government can have incredibly positive effects on society. In the US, I dream of the day where government could try out ideas without the pitchforks coming out. Sure, some ideas will be terrible and that’s OK as long as we throw them in the trash can.
This sparks a thought experiment I've been having. In this world where llms can be thought of as the new layer of compilers, things like pickle are likely going to be the main unit of work for humans.
Only now instead of this developing brittle generated tests, it will instead be used by the llm as guidance to generate the actual code and tests.
Before people jump down my throat, I know we are nowhere near that today and I promise I'm not pitching this to my leadership because they would gobble it up too fast.
But for us engineers, I think there is an interesting space for thinking of llms as akin to garbage collection, a feature that allows us to abstract to a slightly higher level of thought. Yes we still need to know how to check under the hood, but this is looking like the right level of precision-flexibility ratio that llms thrive in
Im in the same boat. In theory JavaScript holds more potential to make finely crafted visuals. But you're right, the ecosystem is so mature I still find other ecosystems lacking.
But if anything would change my opinion this has the right set of values
I'm not really a JavaScript person either, but that hasn't been the worst problem with observable. Tools like vega-lite and importable tools from other notebooks really reduces the amount of code I need to write. Like, I'm not writing d3 code for hours for a simple choropleth. What makes it easier is that I can query objects using SQL rather than lengthy JavaScript code.
Im on the opposite extreme here in that I believe typing obsession is the root of much of our problems as an industry.
I think Rich Hickey was completely right, this is all information and we just need to get better at managing information like we are supposed to.
The downside of this approach is that these systems are tremendously brittle as changing requirements make you comfort your original data model to fit the new requirements.
Most OOP devs have seen atleast 1 library with over 1000 classes. Rust doesn't solve this problem no matter how much I love it. Its the same problem of now comparing two things that are the same but are just different types require a bunch of glue code which can itself lead to new bugs.
Data as code seems to be the right abstraction. Schemas give validation a-la cart while still allowing information to be passed, merged, and managed using generic tools rather than needing to build a whole api for every new type you define in your mega monolith.
A lot of us programmer folk are indefinitely in search of that one thing that will finally let us write the perfect, bug-free, high performance software. We take these concepts to the extreme and convince ourselves that it will absolutely work as long as we strictly do it the Right Way and only the Right Way. Then we try to convince to our fellow programmers that the Right Way will solve all of our problems and that it is the Only Way.
It will be great, it will be grand, it will be amazing.
A wise person once told me that if you ever find yourself saying "if only everyone would just do X...", then you should stop right there. Never, ever, in the history of the world has everyone done X. No matter how good an idea X is, there will always be some people who say "No, I'm going to do Y instead." Maybe they're stupid, maybe they're evil, maybe they're just ignorant... or maybe, just maybe, X was not the best thing for their particular needs and Y was actually better for them.
This is an important concept to keep in mind. It applies to programming, it applies to politics, it applies to nearly every situation you can think of. Any time you find yourself wishing that everyone would just do X and the world would be a better place, realize that that is never going to happen, and that some people will choose to do Y — and some of them will even be right to do so, because you do not (and cannot) know the specific needs of every human being on the planet, so X will not actually be right for some of them.
> Its the same problem of now comparing two things that are the same but are just different types require a bunch of glue code which can itself lead to new bugs.
Uhuh, so my age and my weight are the same (integers), but just have different types. Okay.
i love casey and I love this talk. Always good to see people outside of academia doing deep research and this corroborates allot of how I have understood the subject.
I find it funny that even after he goes into explicit detail about describing oop back to the original sources people either didn't watch it or are just blowing past his research to move the goal post and claim thats not actually what OOP is because they don't want to admit the industry is obsessed with a mistake just like waterfall and are too stockholm syndromed to realize
Except that his talk is not anti-OOP. It's anti-a-specific-way of using OOP. Namely representing the Domain Model as the compile time hierarchy. He goes to great lengths that he himself uses OOP concepts in his code. OOP wasn't a mistake per-se. The mainstream way of using as promulgated by a number of experts was the mistake.
The problem is when you take out mistakes, there's not much left of OOP.
We take out 'dog-is-an-animal' inheritance.
We take out object-based delegation of responsibility (an object shall know how to draw itself). A Painter will instead draw many fat structs.
Code reuse? Per the talk, the guy who stumbled onto this was really looking for a List<> use-case, (not a special kind of Bus/LinkedList hybrid. He was after parametric polymorphism, not inheritance.
> "OO is not bad when there is an actual entity - i.e. a stream, a socket, a window, etc to which an object corresponds, or in a simulation of actual entities. That's where it was born and where it shines. … For instance, don't customers buy products? Which should own the functions that involve both?"
What is the purpose of the customers / products app?
I get that its funny to shit on philosophers with the "time is a social construct" quip but you then literally outline the arguments that make this statement true.
The philosophers had their finger on the pulse decades ago, science only started listening after their models stopped being able to construct a clean deterministic view of the universe.
Meh, you're making the same mistake most do on this one. You're treating the Linux desktop like it's compatible even though these two non-linux operating systems are made by some of the biggest companies ever with allot of engineering hours paid to lock people in.
Plus, one could argue they've actually just established dominance through market lockin by ensuring the culture never had a chance and making operating system moves hard for the normal person.
But more importantly if we instead consider the context that this is largely a collection of small utilities made by volunteers vs huge companies with paid engineering teams, one should be amazed at how comparable they are at all.
Its just not that simple. The best way I can dovetail with the author is that you are thinking in terms of the abstraction but you have mistaken the abstraction for reality.
Physics, biological sciences, these are tools the mind uses to try and make guesses about the future based on past events. But the abstraction isn't perfect, and its questionable on whether or not it could or should one day be.
The clear example is that large breakthroughs in science often comes from rethinking this fundamental abstraction to explain problems that the old implementation had trouble with. Case in point being quantum physics which has warped how we original understood newtonian physics. Einstein fucking hated quantum because he felt it undermined the idea of objective reality.
The reality (pun intended) is that it is much more complex than our abstractions like science and we would do well to remember they are pragmatic tools and are ultimately unconcerned with the practice of metaphysics which is the underlying nature of reality.
This all seems like philosophy ramblings until we get to little lines like this. Scientism, or the belief that science is the primary and only necessary lens to understand the world falls for the same trap as religion of thinking that you have the answer to reality so anything else outside is either unnecessary or even dangerous to one who holds these views.
I’m not sure I really understand this point. I believe that the scientific method (hypothesis, repeated tests, reality check) is the only successful method we’ve developed to advance our understanding of how the world works. I never claimed it’s perfect but that’s shaky footing that’s being injected onto this position. A counterclaim has to show that there’s something better than the scientific method that humans have been engaging in for attaining a better understanding of reality.
Often such attempts try to just wholly put themselves outside the realm of science which I don’t think puts them on strong footing. Just like updates to standard models still have to explain our current understandings of quantum and relativity, alternate methodologies for observing reality have to hold up to scientific scrutiny.
But I claim ignorance here. What better mechanisms has humanity developed for observing and understanding reality?
Thank you, most of these books are actively harmful, and the lack of intellectual rigor makes them exactly this, entertainment masquerading as education.
What matters is humility, thoughtfulness, and a relentless focus on quality. These books sell to people that want all of the inspiration with none of the work.
But other people need an ISO and yes all those things are kinda considered standard at this point.
People like you and I aren't the target audience, but for the people who are, this is what they have been asking for.
reply