It’s a bear dance!
It’s a bear dance!
Unfortunately, “sauron [command]
” still won’t see the Jia Tan backdoor obscured in the shadows, nor the_ring.yml
that you’re piping to /dev/null
If its something that represents mutually exclusive states, like the license plates examples (Gov’t, Embassy, Learner), an enum like 4wd mentioned is a better idea than many boolean keys. This would also be the switch/case question you posed. For a “regular case”, I would include that in the enum, but if you create an enum that only contains “special cases”, you can always set it to null.
On the case of booleans, I would suggest avoiding them unless it is necessary, and truly a binary (as in, two-option, not binary numbers), self-contained-in-one-key thing (obligatory anti-boolean video). If the use case is to say what a different key’s object represents, you don’t need it (see: enums. You’ll thank yourself later if you add a third option). If the use case for using it is saying another key contains value(s), you don’t need it. Many languages can handle the idea of “data is present, or not present” (either with “truthy/falsey” behavior interpreting “data-or-null”, or “Maybe/Option” types), so often “data-or-null” can suffice instead of booleans.
I would suggest trying to always include all keys of a present object, even if it’s value is null or not applicable. It will prevent headaches later when code might try to access that key, but it isn’t present. This approach might also help you decide to reduce the quantity of keys, if they could be consolidated (as in taking booleans and converting to a state-like enum, as mentioned above), or removed (if unused and/or deprecated).
I think maybe starting with Leninism, what youre saying may be true, but not with Marxism. I think this comment explains it a bit well:
So the original Marxist idea would lead to withering-away of government, and thus zero parties, not one-party authoritarianism. But due to all the authoritarian implementations, people think of states like the USSR when they hear/see communism
The problem is these people are voted in by states who comprise of residents who have brain injuries, misogynistic views, extremist ideals, and/or a myriad of other skewed thoughts.
So unfortunately we get stuck with the consequences of other state’s resident’s decisions
Well I ask these cause authoritarianism seems counterintuitive to the main philosophy around Marxism. Saying “the proletariat should have greater value and power in a business, since they’re doing the actual labor”, but then rolling over and accepting a dictatorship where the populace has no political say seems nonsensical.
Hence why I suspect the authoritarianism must have come first. So I can’t necessarily agree to “communism predisposing itself to authoritarianism” since it doesn’t make sense for a True-Marxist society to want to accept that sort of government.
As for how to set up the government in a communist-economy state: probably more of a Republic. People elect multiple representatives, and these representatives meet and decide on policies for the country and how to run it
Every major country that has ever gone down the communist road ended up a dictatorship
While I don’t think full-on Marxism is necessary and am in agreement on the democratic socialism, I think the reason for this is really more towards the political end of it than the economic.
If a country practicing a communist economy had a more representative/democratic political system from the start, I’d like to see how the results panned out. And I’d also like to see which came first, the dictatorship, or the communism. The former being first makes more sense than the latter.
Agreed. Functional languages really raised my standard for what a language could be.
Stronger typing. More functional flow. Less dumb errors.
Haskell for sure has a very sloped learning curve. The functional style, different syntax, a myriad of symbols and pragmas, as well as the tooling around it.
The only reason I was able to pick it up as quick as I did was because I was used to Elm due to my job. Then it was just learning about the IO type (and how to use it), cabal, stack, built-in symbols, and the most common pragmas.
But the symbols part is especially harsh, since symbols only hold meaning if they’re universally understood. Sure, the base- language ones are kinda adopted at this point, so they’ll stay, but the fact that external modules can also make symbols (sometimes without actually-named counterparts) adds some confusion. Like, would you just know what .:
is supposed to mean off the top of your head?
Based on the first example:
If you want to help yourself a bit, enumerate
your for loop. enumerate turns an iterable (like a list, or in this case a string) into an iterable of tuples, with contents being an int representing the index of an item and the item itself:
for (i, letter) in enumerate(chosen_word):
(Side note, the parenthesis surrounding (i, letter)
are optional. I purposely included them to show that it’s a tuple.)
i
will be the index of each character, and letter
will be the character itself. You can then do:
if letter == guess:
And to wrap it up, do list assignment by index. Someone already mentioned why not to use insert in this scenario, so I won’t repeat them. The following will instead overwrite the item at display
index i
with the guessed character:
display[i] = guess
Probably a “side effect” of the tactic of luring in people with the first paragraph then asking for you to subscribe. Im sure that the HTML (of the full article) is probably still there, but they’re hidden or covered by the “subscribe to read” elements.
For transpiled-to-JS languages: Elm, Purescript, Typescript
I personally use Elm. Really helps remove all the JS funny business, without really having to type it (mostly)
Of course. I don’t call Facebook Meta, and I don’t call Google Alphabet.
You can change your company’s name, or nest it in a shell, people still know who you are
Cool. Cool cool cool