I think treating AI as the best possible field for everyone smart and capable is itself very narrow minded and short sighted. Some people just aren't interested in that field, what's so hard to accept it? World still needs experts in other fields even within computing.
People believed this before. Then WW1 happened. 100 years later, people forgot the lessons of the past, and believed this again. Then Russia invaded Ukraine.
If Ukraine was part of NATO it wouldn’t have happened I am willing to bet.
Most in depth analysis I’ve seen of these Russia - Ukraine conflicts cite this as one of the top factors in why Russia invaded both a decade ago and the most recent war that is ongoing.
That is to say - mutual cooperation agreements like that have enough teeth to keep conflicts to a minimum as the repercussions are severe
Also another ultimate irony is that Russia didn’t completely cut the rest of Europe off from its oil and gas. That symbiosis continues albeit not the same way. Perhaps electricity would be the same
> 1. If the code implementing the module API is private, it must all be colocated in one package. If it is public, then anyone can import it, breaking the module boundary. You need a visibility system that can say "this subtree of packages can cooperate with each other, but code outside the subtree can only use the top-level package."
This is easily achieved in Scala with a particular use of package paths. You are allowed to make some symbols only visible under a package path.
Unfortunately the thought pattern “modern software development is way too complex, we need something radically simpler… I know! I’ll use Scala!” is not a thing.
A lot of criticism of Rust (not denying that there are also a lot useful criticisms of Rust out there) boils down to "it requires me to think/train in a different way than I used to, therefore it's hard" and goes on to how the other way is easier which is not the case but it's just familiar to them hence they think it's easier and simpler. More people should watch the talk "Simple made easy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxdOUGdseq4
Void in Haskell is not the same thing as `void` in C, C++, Java or similar languages. If you return `Void` in Haskell, you will get a runtime error but `void` returning functions in C-like languages don't fail. It's not a type that doesn't have any value, rather it's a type that has a single value (normal return). Therefore it's more similar to `unit`.
Void having no values means it's impossible to return it or call a function that accepts it, so that would make it a compile-time error as opposed to runtime, no?
In practice yes, so when you try to execute the function that accepts `Void`, that will error out. But there is no reason to not compile it because it will never actually execute. This may sound unpractical but quite the contrary it's very useful. For instance, it's used to model functions that panics in Rust (https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/types/never.html). That way you can have a function called `todo` which fails when executed, but keeps the type checker happy until you actually implement it.
Right, it's very useful for lots of reasons, one being that any construct that actually tries to use a Void return value or construct a parameter value will be rejected at compile time.
What I am really curious about is whether there's any uses of `absurd :: Void -> a` in the wild. I guess it's a top type for arbitrary functions, though I'm not sure how useful that is in itself...
That's the point I tried to make. All my bachelor education there was no single mention of sum types even though we learned about the visitor pattern. Instead of having to model sum types with object hierarchies, the language should provide a straightforward way to represent them since it's a very basic concept. I think that while things have improved a lot compared to past, sum types concept is still not known as much as objects for instance. Today all mainstream languages added direct support for sum types but awareness of it lacks.
> With Monday’s announcement universal child care will be extended to every family in the state, regardless of income. This amounts to an average annual family savings of $12,000 per child.
I think you conflate happiness and pleasure. Maintaining a family surely not always pleasant, but for the most people it makes you happier than being alone.
