> When the dude uses `foldl` over lists and `foldr` with `(*)` (numeric product) it is not the language that's the lost cause.
This is a great example of Haskell's community being toxic. The author clearly mentioned they're new to the language, so calling them a "lost cause" for making a beginner mistake is elitist snobbery.
I usually don't point these things out and just move on with my life, but I went to a Haskell conference last year and was surprised that many Haskell proponents are not aware of the effects of this attitude towards newcomers.
Can I ask which conference? Did people behave towards you in that way at that conference, or are you referring to behaviour online? I will try to use whatever authority I have in the Haskell community to improve the situation.
(Still, hopefully in this case it's clear from instig007's reply that it's not a member of the Haskell community behaving in that way.)
This is almost exclusively just online behaviour. Everyone I met in person is very nice :).
The conference I mentioned was ZuriHac. After the key-note Q&A there was a small hallway discussion around how to grow the adoption / reach of Haskell. The conversation revolved around mostly technical points (like how Haskell is superior to x, because of y). What I found interesting was that there was little to no talk about the steep learning curve, developer ergonomics or business use-cases.
The thing is, if someone has not yet learned about functional programming, strong type systems or category theory, why / how would they see the advantages or the power of pure functions, lazy evaluation, Monads, etc. At the same time, their opinions or struggles are often dismissed due to their lack of knowledge. The parent comment is a prime example of this.
> calling them a "lost cause" for making a beginner mistake is elitist snobbery.
I wonder how do you call the practice of complete beginners spreading FUD and suggesting to their readers that something in the language is "a lost cause", all whilst having neither enough knoweldge nor sufficient practice to make assumptions of this kind.
> This is a great example of Haskell's community being toxic
To be clear: I don't represent haskell community, I'm not part of it, and I couldn't care less about it. It just so happened that I saw the author inflating their credentials at the expense of the language via spreading FUD, that the beginners you seem to care about are susceptible to, and I didn't like it.
If you get triggered by the expressed dissatisfaction with the author's unsubstantiated presumptuousness, reflected back at them in a style and manner they allowed themselves to talk about the thing they don't know about, then it's purely on you and your infantilism.
I don't question your experience but I think this is not a great example of that. That was a random HN commenter, not Haskell's community (which is quite large and diverse).
Newcomers need the self-awareness to understand that they are newcomers and that their opinions are more often than not wrong. This author doesn't have that humility.
It is simply aggravating to see newcomers without humility speak with an authoritative tone on subjects they barely know.
> But my concern is always what happens to the poor.
There are subsidies available to low-income households. I'm unsure about the specifics as subsidies differ from one canton to another and usually depend on your income and family status.
I hate to cite Wikipedia as a source [1], but it looks like the majority of countries do not add fluoride to tap water (only 24 countries in total do).
But Sweden seems to have an interesting history with it indeed.
Sure, it's _somewhat_ lower than the US, but not to the degree that you can claim a big disparity in my opinion. As such, we could even rewrite your statement to the following:
> Today I learned that 59% of Finns are obese. Never been to Finland but I'm truly baffled how people and the government could let this happen.
Also, as other commenters have pointed out, "overweight" does not mean "obese".
> Also, as other commenters have pointed out, "overweight" does not mean "obese".
And to elaborate on this: part of the reason these numbers are shockingly high vs what we subjectively experience is we have a really bad definition of overweight that miscategorizes lots of people who look (and probably are) perfectly healthy. BMI is an extremely rough guideline that's a bit useful at the state level but is a terrible metric for any individual to use to decide if they're healthy. I've seen my fair share of eating disorders directly caused by someone using BMI when it's inappropriate for their build or life stage.
When these stats are used by journalists and lay people rather than public health professionals who recognize the limitations, they're mostly good for giving >50% of everyone an excuse to pat themselves on the back that they're healthier than the >50% who are "overweight".
I'm trying to peek at the data in the dev tools. It's doing a long running request to https://bfcm-globe-data-service-central.shopifycloud.com/pub... which is constantly downloading more data, but when I go to peek at the raw data in the "EventStream" tab it shows nothing.
It does look cool, but I do find the 'Carbon removed' ticker slightly misleading. In what way does this reflect carbon removed? Surely carbon added to the atmosphere is broadly proportional to the total value of sales.
Sadly those are almost certainly greenwashing bullshit. John Oliver did a piece on that. Also there was this guardian review that didn't find a single satisfactory project among 50.
Yes, afaik, direct air capture currently is miniscule and when it is happening the co2 is sold on the market, where it replaces waste-product-co2, so in the end no co2 is actually removed from the atmosphere.
It's currently in research phase, marketing it as "you can offset your carbon emissions here" is lies.
We currently can't both consume like this and improve the outcome of global warming. The whole idea of black friday goes against such efforts. Attempts to market it otherwise, even if they were credible are greenwashing.
To be frank, it sounds like you're deadset on being cynical no matter what. Shopify has committed to removing carbon from the atmosphere via direct air capture, and that's what their metric is counting. Direct air capture is literally removing carbon from the atmosphere, regardless of what's done with the carbon afterwards.
> Direct air capture is literally removing carbon from the atmosphere, regardless of what's done with the carbon afterwards
Regardless of what’s done afterwards? Sure, if we arbitrarily decide to ignore the full effects of any system we can make all sorts of fanciful claims. That’s not exactly useful, though.
My point was that Shopify is removing carbon from the atmosphere with their DACs. It’s not their fault if someone then purchases that carbon they removed and decides to shoot it straight back into the atmosphere, or whatever it is you’re concerned about, assuming just anyone can even purchase Shopify’s removed carbon. I suppose we can’t be satisfied until Shopify finds a way to remove the carbon and then ship it off of earth entirely using a space elevator?
No they are not, they are paying someone to do it someday. Those someone are shady. No carbon is currently removed from the atmosphere. Even when operational it will be a tiny fraction of what they are causing. It's a marketing stunt with no effect on the climate. In fact it makes it worse, cause people then think it's ok to keep consuming.
Your hypothesis is that it’d be better for the planet if Shopify were to remove no carbon from the atmosphere at all? Society as a whole would check the Shopify BFCM dashboard, see that there is no carbon removal metric, and have some kind of epiphany like “wow, Shopify isn’t removing carbon from my purchases, maybe I shouldn’t spend as much this holiday weekend”?
> Those someone are shady.
What makes them shady? I have a feeling you only think they’re shady because they want to do carbon removal, which you’ve unilaterally decided is ineffective.
Shopify lists their partners on the page and it seems legit enough, not just "Thanks for the $10, I won't remove this tree on the side of this mountain now".
It’s 100% false consciousness. The Black Friday consumption is a significant carbon pollution event, but ‘conscious consumers’ (and engineers) appreciate the carbon offset trick.
I disagree. While this dichotomy might hold true in other examples, in the case of iPhones it was always possible to push custom software to your own device for development purposes. There is a somewhat arbitrary limitation that those apps only work for a week until the process needs to be repeated (unless you enroll in Apple's Developer Program), but that's a different topic.
The main demand in these "sideloading" discussions is therefore that Apple ought to make installing unlisted Apps easier. Personally, I don't understand why this should be of Apple's concern though. They already present a choice to app developers: Either go through their walled garden or impose a technical process on your (non-technical) end-users. Interestingly, there are already projects like AltStore that try to make the latter easier, which should be taken as proof that the whole "sideloading is impossible" argument is not really truthful.
Why this rose up to the highest ranks of the political system is beyond me.
PS: The existence of Jailbreaks further undermines the argument that you cannot control the software on your device.
>>PS: The existence of Jailbreaks further undermines the argument that you cannot control the software on your device.
How? It's like saying car manufacturers aren't really locking down their cars to hardware that only official dealerships own, because after all you can just buy a coding tool from some random AliExpress seller so it's fine. What are people complaining about.
>> in other examples, in the case of iPhones it was always possible to push custom software to your own device for development purposes.
Sure, which is still a process 100% controlled by apple and which they can pull out at any moment. Also let's not pretend it's anywhere near as easy as installing Galaxy Store on android and instantly getting out of Google's restrictions on the play store. Hopefully we'll get legislation that removes that possibility entirely.
>>The main demand in these "sideloading" discussions is therefore that Apple ought to make installing unlisted Apps easier.
I have no idea where you've seen such demands, because it's not true. No one wants apple to host apps which would otherwise be unlisted or outright banned. That wouldn't make any logical sense and would be an unjust cost on apple. I do however want to be able to install an alternative app store and install apps from it without apple butting their nose into it. Like courts have ruled in the past already - if I make some software for iOS and a person wants to buy that software, why should apple control whether I can sell them that software or worse - get a cut of the sale[0]. Because they made the platform? Well, you don't pay anything to Mercedes for making mercedes-compatible wipers, and I really struggle to see how this is any different.
[0] assuming you don't use the app store of course in which case they should absolutely be paid.
This webapp seems to be more useful though, thanks for sharing.