200
What hills are you dying on?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
200 points (89.4% liked)
Asklemmy
48257 readers
692 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Can we share the first hill?
Rather than banning that just tax the shit out of people who have multiple homes
I'd even be willing to let someone have their lake/hunting cabin/whatever and not tax too much but people are greedy and we're far past that point. Once you start accumulating 5-10 homes, taking them off the market for other buyers, the taxes should increase exponentially.
We cAn tax them 1 home for every excess home and donate that home to a homeless person
You could just build housing with the revenue from taxing it
We don't have a lack of housing. We have a distribution problem. We can't just build infinitely, we need to redistribute.
The Welsh did that (or just some Welsh councils?), pretty sure it was very popular among the people actually living in the area.
What is your problem with static typing
I'm not super fond of dynamic typing either. I like untyped or uni-typed languages like 'everything is an array' (APL) or 'everything is an integer' (Forth, assembly).
I'm of the same opinion as Chuck Moore who once observed, "Strong typing merely creates errors so that they can be detected." In my experience, the amount of complexity added by these systems is staggering. To such a degree that they cause more errors than they prevent. More types, more opportunities to use them incorrectly, after all.
I also prefer the 'build the program while it's running' workflow, which is inhibited by static typing.
One time I found a C++ library where everything was of a single type, the "untype" essentially. It removed all type safety, in other words, to allow pure binary access to all data. I mean, there's an occasion now and then when one needs that sort of thing, but I found in every case it was just a headache. Now I know there's two people like that, haha.
Well, I don't agree with you, but I respect a hot take about coding when I see one. My own a-little-less-spicy-than-yours take is that OOP is overated.