> In essence, then, those ten days in 1582 never happened and simply do not exist within the Gregorian calendar system used almost universally in the West today.
I find these things so much easier to think about if you consider the change as a change from one calendar system to another calendar system. Those 10 days certainly exist, in both calendar systems, they just represent different points in time. I.e., I think it's easier to just consider both calendar systems as the rules, extended forward & backwards infinitely ("proleptic"). Some people switched from a Julian calendar to a Gregorian one in 1582.
"Some people did not experience days with these labels in some areas of the world" … I get where it's coming from, but it's not how I'd build a library.
If you worry about the switch, then you have to ask "which switch?" which TFA only lightly touches on. The 1582 one is famous, of course, but not everyone switched, and other parts of the worlds switched as time went on, to as late as 1918, when Russia switched.[1] (And you can see other messiness in that table, too.)
Needing to deal with it is niche enough that I think most language std libs should implement the proleptic Gregorian calendar, and let an application whose niche requires it deal with the switch (& whichever switch it requires).
On my own bike, I don't think there is a pace that isn't easier. Even at slow speeds, it's not a whole lot of work. (And you can always change to a gear where it just isn't a lot of work to go slow. The challenge is more remaining upright, but a low gear and the barest of forward momentum will help that.)
Who cycles at less than 9mph? According to your link the average cycling speed in Copenhagen is 9.6mph so, according to your numbers, people are putting in more energy than they would with walking to go faster. Nobody cycles at walking speed because it saves energy.
> Chip manufacturing is so complicated that there's probably no single person who could understand the entire process, from end to end.
There are YouTube videos of a guy doing chip fabrication in his clean room shed. Just as I understand the assembly output of my compiler (… and no, I don't work in a low level language), he understands chip fabrication end to end.
CS is not that wide, not yet. No, one cannot know every facet of the field, but one can know enough about the facets one is in contact with that they're not "here be dragons" on the map. All the way down to the hardware.
> There are YouTube videos of a guy doing chip fabrication in his clean room shed
The fact this is "a guy", and probably there are very few people in the world who would be able to execute such a thing, probably should tell you how difficult that actually is. You're actually unintentionally making parent's point stronger, as obviously the production processes used for market products is much, much more complicated than what a guy in a shed does.
> Just as I understand the assembly output of my compiler
Fair enough, this is probably way more common than "person who understands the entire chip manufacturing process from beginning to end", but it's still something that less and less people know about, in a room of 100 average developers, probably few of them could realistically claim to understand all the assembly output of their compiler, if even they're familiar enough with that their language outputs assembly in the first place.
The range of skills in developers is enourmous, you have Klaus working as IT+web dev+database+admin in a tiny 2 person web shop, and on the other hand you have Anders who is a ML expert optimizing CUDA kernels, and everything in-between. That all (or even most) of them know the far end of what they currently know is wishful thinking really, Klaus doesn't need to know about what the NVCC compiler outputs, nor do Anders need to know about the specific constraints of mapping packaged products to order shipments, that's all fine.
And this is fine! This is the whole point of living in a civilization. Master your craft, get useful, trade with people who know other useful things, everyone is better off.
You could just as easily point out that subsistence farmers exist. That’s great, but we still need industrial agriculture to feed everyone. No single human fully understands that domain either… even ignoring the chemistry, biology and meteorology, those farms use digitally controlled tools! That means all of computer science is embedded in farming.
It’s great to pursue broad knowledge. It’s important to understand your dependencies and respect the abstractions you build on. It’s pure hubris to think an individual auteur can challenge a multi-billion person civilization.
All I can say is you're lucky that your meat proxies are still identifying themselves as such.
I've had people forward AI responses … sans "Claude said". I'm quite literally talking to Claude via proxy, and I've caught more than one person pulling this stunt. It's a nightmare of negative productivity, though. Just why? And invariably the kicker is they still want me to solve their problem, whatever that might be.
> eBay entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and admitted to a detailed recitation of all the relevant facts about its conduct and agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $3 million, which is the statutory maximum fine for these six felony offenses.
Scaled from eBay's $11.1B/y to a person making $70k/y, that's proportional to a $18.92 fine.
"The statutory maximum for these six felony offenses."
There's not really a "standard" character set and an "emoji" one. There is an emoji block (U+1F600 to U+1F64F), and this heart (U+2665) is not in that. But this heart is an emoji, in that the data file emoji-data.txt for contains `Emoji=Yes` ("=Yes for characters that are emoji", —UTS #51) for this character. However, this heart has `Emoji_Presentation=No`, which "=Yes for characters that have emoji presentation by default" (—UTS #51).
So basically, it should present, by default, in its non-emoji appearance. (Though there seem to be a number of readers for whom that isn't true. I think that's macOS being badly behaved.) There are some characters that can flip/flop between a "text" (normal monochrome) presentation and an emoji presentation; all of the card suit characters are. Unadorned (e.g., just U+2665 alone) then, you have to follow the emoji default presentation rules. In some contexts, such as web pages, that's "just do what that Emoji_Presentation flag says" for those characters, but see [§Presentation Style](https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#Presentat...) for exceptions to the rule. (HN is not an exception.) But you can also follow the character with a variation selector, to try to force either text (U+FE0E) or emoji (U+FE0F) presentation.
There are a number of what I'd call "yeah that's definitely an emoji" outside the Emoji block, too. Like U+2705 "white check in green box" (which HN disallows me posting); that one is Emoji=Yes but also Emoji_Presentation=Yes)
(IDK if Emoji=Yes Emoji_Presentation=Yes is HN's filter … but that'd be what I would do, if I wanted to filter out emoji like HN does.)
Yet somehow print/TV worked for decades just fine without spying on their users.
I do not want the gas station, or the airplane I'm on, spying on me to build relevant advertising. That is the end game of "relevant ads": my gas pump already serves me ads, the airplane I'm on serves me ads, my own car now (via a software update that occurred after purchase) serves me ads. Monitors now serve ads. TVs are abusing people's Internet connections, which isn't ads, but it's basically the same problem: if I can abuse the customer without consequence, why shouldn't I?
Just no. The problem is, I as a consumer cannot vote with my wallet: companies can and will go "I could take your money, and earn $X, or I could do that and ads and earn $X + $Y."; there is not reason for them to choose the former, and most markets are so concentrated (e.g., airlines) that there is not ample competition for the market to provide ample "vote with wallet" choices. Further, in the car example, it's just bait and switch: even when I think I can vote with my wallet, the company can just alter the terms of the deal, knowing full well the switching price of a car makes me subservient to them.
I've never understood the thing about gas costs. It is oft complained about. And while it always seems to be a point of contention, a quick google search suggests the cost is ≈$200/mo on average¹. Rent and healthcare vastly outstrip that; groceries is more but not by as significant a factor.
I find these things so much easier to think about if you consider the change as a change from one calendar system to another calendar system. Those 10 days certainly exist, in both calendar systems, they just represent different points in time. I.e., I think it's easier to just consider both calendar systems as the rules, extended forward & backwards infinitely ("proleptic"). Some people switched from a Julian calendar to a Gregorian one in 1582.
"Some people did not experience days with these labels in some areas of the world" … I get where it's coming from, but it's not how I'd build a library.
If you worry about the switch, then you have to ask "which switch?" which TFA only lightly touches on. The 1582 one is famous, of course, but not everyone switched, and other parts of the worlds switched as time went on, to as late as 1918, when Russia switched.[1] (And you can see other messiness in that table, too.)
Needing to deal with it is niche enough that I think most language std libs should implement the proleptic Gregorian calendar, and let an application whose niche requires it deal with the switch (& whichever switch it requires).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adoption_dates_of_the_...
reply