Not actually a doctor.
Thanks for sharing this, it’s quite interesting. I found a Wikipedia article on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unary_numeral_system
Apparently, as you did suggest, “base 1” is a name that is used, but is somewhat a misnomer.
The article mentions that Church encoding is a kind of unary notation, which I would not have thought of, but I guess it is.
Enjoyable little rabbit-hole to zap my productivity for the day.
You seem to have missed the important phrase “in source code”, as well as the entire second part of my comment discussing that runtime functions that parse user input are different.
At the (SQL) database level, if you are using null in any sane way, it means “this value exists but is unknown”. Conflating that with “this value does not exist” is very dangerous. JavaScript, the closest thing there is to a reference implementation for json serialization, drops attributes set to undefined, but preserves null. You seem to be insisting that null only means “explicit omission”, but that isn’t the case. Null means a variety of subtly different things in different contexts. It’s perfectly fine to explicitly define null and missing as equivalent in any given protocol, but assuming it is not.
Closer to tally marks without clustering
Who calls it that? Who even uses that enough to have given it a name? Seems completely pointless…
It’s been a long time, but I’m pretty sure C treats a leading zero as octal in source code. PHP and Node definitely do. Yes, it’s a bad convention. It’s much worse if that’s being done by a runtime function that parses user input, though. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that somewhere in the past, but no idea where. Doesn’t seem likely to be common.
It’s better to have useful comments. Long odds are that somebody who writes comments like this absolutely isn’t writing useful comments as well - in fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen it happen. Comments like this increase cognitive overhead when reading code. Sure, I’d be happy to accept ten BS useless comments in exchange for also getting one good one, but that’s not the tradeoff in reality - it’s always six hundred garbage lines of comment in exchange for nothing at all. This kind of commenting usually isn’t the dev’s fault, though - somebody has told a junior dev that they need to comment thoroughly, without any real guidelines, and they’re just trying not to get fired or whatever.
Characterizing the voters as “lazy” is really failing to understand how bad legislators stay in office. We need to reform our electoral systems to make legislators more accountable to democratic oversight, not impose arbitrary limits that take the power away from the voters.
With term limits, the Congress would lose institutional knowledge. When a new member of Congress came in, they would only have lobbyists to give them introductions, teach them the ropes. Legislation is a difficult job that requires professionals, not just a bunch of newbies. We would be absolutely signing over the Congress to complete corporate control.
More democracy is better.
Less democracy is worse.
I think you’re underestimating the extent to which they really want these things, or their donors do. These issues aren’t new, and many of them either trace back to before the founding of the country, or are proxies for other issues which do. They’re just feeling bold these days.
I must not be educated. Please, what are the dangers of communism? And what, exactly, do you think the word “communism” means?
Why? Can you provide an accurate definition of communism, and a theory as to why you think it cannot be done without becoming a dictatorship? Can you provide an accurate definition of capitalism, and why you think it is more free?
Putin isn’t a communist, though. Far from it.
I mean great, I support this, but 450 people is “a massive march”? How did 75 organizations only come up with 450 people? That’s only 6 people per organization. Here’s hoping this grows a lot by the convention.
So, do you not think the principle of ensuring a justice doesn’t have to worry about their next gig is valuable, or do you think youthfulness is just more important?
I think the court should be expanded, quite a lot. There is nothing magical or constitutional about the number nine. Congress could easily expand it to twenty, or fifty, or more while limiting justices by terms or age would require a constitutional amendment. Nothing says every justice has to sit on every case. A larger court would be significantly less prone to extremes, reducing the importance of individual nominations.
I’m nearly fifty, now. Why am I disillusioned by capitalism? Because the illusion is thin and flimsy. I really hope the disillusionment of millennials isn’t just because they don’t have a good enough retirement plan, or anything else that can be easily fixed. I hope that they are waking up to realize that giving unelected, unaccountable, private owners of capital control over the production and distribution of goods, services, and information, is an extremist, antidemocratic idea, that is driving the global climate crisis, and the slide toward fascism.
Our democracy is deeply broken, but it is a democracy. If we lost it, you’d just get the batshit insane party candidate put directly in, and they could do whatever they wanted.
To confirm and expand on what others are saying: a general strike is not protected, and any union that endorses one will lose their recognition. How can you get that many people to risk their jobs, with no organizing union that can even legally participate?
If you can get that many people that dedicated to your cause, it would be a whole lot easier to just get them to vote in a primary.
Why? Because they’re well attested by multiple sources.
That’s an entirely different criterion, though. I honestly don’t even know how to respond to this non-sequitur.
For the same reason you’re doing it now?
You mean to say these “enemies” would have doubted that Jesus existed because they heard that there is some historical debate on the matter, and that there may not be any good evidence to support the claim, looked into it, agreed, and found it to be an interesting topic to debate on the Internet? That seems really unlikely to me.
Look at it this way: if I told you that a guy I know claims that his buddy Frank, who died ten years ago, had made certain religious and political statements, which I agree with, and you found those statements to be blasphemous and offensive, would you argue back with “well, uh, how do we know this Frank guy even existed? Huh?!” Or would you take his existence as a fairly trivial given, and argue against the actual statements he allegedly made?
It’s honestly bizarre to me that anybody would imagine this “enemies” argument has any weight at all. That’s not how people work.
The closest thing we have to a first-hand account of the life of Jesus is the Gospel of Mark, a book of uncertain authorship
the followers of Jesus likely would’ve been illiterate, and likely so would’ve Jesus himself, and the first gospel was likely only written after decades of “playing telephone”
I don’t mean no first-hand in-depth account, that’s some serious goal-post moving. If anybody even remotely describable as a historic Jesus existed, that dude made waves. He would have been a public figure, of great interest, and some contemporary would have probably at least written down something about him that would have survived to the historical record.
Evidence of belief is not evidence of existence
True, but it is usually the first step towards finding something that does exist
Is it? When has that happened? I think the first step towards finding something that exists is observing it, or observing its tangible effects that cannot be explained in other, simpler ways.
Jewish writers like Philo of Alexandria believed he existed and apparently had reason to believe he existed since him and all of his contemporaries never thought to question Jesus’s existence
Again, why would they? Would you, honestly, in their place?
Is that a broadly accepted historical criteria, or just one of the many made-up ones used by biblical historians? Why would the “enemies” themselves have any reason to think that some dude a lot of people talk about isn’t even real? In a world with no photography, no printing press, no telegraph? How, was there not one single first-hand account? Evidence of belief is not evidence of existence. If it were, we’d have to acknowledge the historical reality of God, Satan, Zeus, Thor, and Bigfoot. At least there are contemporary first-hand claims from people who say they saw Bigfoot.
If your SQL model has nulls, and you don’t have some clear way to conserve them throughout the data chain, including to the json schema in your API contract, you have a bug. That way to preserve them doesn’t have to be keeping nulls distinct from missing values in the json schema, but it’s certainly the most straightforward way.
The world has more than three languages, and the way Java and Python do things is not universally correct. I’m not up to date on either of them, but I’m also guessing that they both have multiple libraries for (de) serialization and for API contract validation, so I am not really convinced your claims are universal even within those languages.
I am not the other person you were talking to, I’ve only made one comment on this, so not really “hellbent”, friend.
Yes, I am pretty sure I read the comments, although you’re making me wonder if I’m missing one. What specific comment, what “case specified above” are you referring to? As far as I can see, you are the one trying to say that if a distinction between null and a non-existent attribute is not specified, it should universally be assumed to be meaningless and fine to drop null values. I don’t see any context that changes that. If you can point it out, specifically, I’ll be glad to reassess.