my money is on vi or vi derivates.

I don't think google will allow them to move to chromium. They need gecko to avoid anti-trust law suites.

Yeah, I believe the official instance of EU and ACM are both quite small. It is a great way to verify people's identity just from their ID.

In Maybe monadic, its monadic bind will automatically resolves any failed computation, and don't need explicit checking.

for example, the code in Haskell looks something like the following:

fib: Int -> Int -> Maybe Int
fib max_depth idx =
  do
     guard (0 <= max_depth)
     n1 <- fib (max_depth - 1) (idx - 1)
     n2 <- fib (max_depth - 1) (idx - 2)
     return (n1 + n2)

Haskell type class system automatically figures out this is a maybe monad, and check for error accordingly.

Notice, unlike the C code the author provide, this haskell code will exit immediately when n1 failed and never compute n2, similar to the behavior of the exception code. Thus I believe his point about performance is at least unjustified, if not wrong.

Another interesting fact about this code is that there is nothing that is built into the compiler/interpretor (except the do expression, which is just a minor syntactical sugar). For this code, the compiler designers don't need to design special semantics for raise and catch. Everything here, guard, return, and the Maybe monad (which is in charge of propagating errors) is defined by the user, using normal functions, no metaprogramming involved.

Wouldn't effect systems still be considered exceptions, but handled differently?

Yes, unlike monad, the error in algebraic effect is propagated by the compiler/interpretor, instead of user defined. But unlike implicit effect, explicit effect (algebraic effect, throwable, etc.) makes it clear how the code can go wrong.

Although explicit error through monad or algebraic effect is more clear in general, there are special cases where explicit effect is undesirable. One such example is effect pollution: low-level effects that are unlikely to cause impure behaviors are unnecessarily propagated through the call stack. This problem can make the code more verbose and difficult to handle.

The more I read about these kind of article the more I am amazed that our digital future is at hand in utterly incompetent people.

This person clearly have no understanding of monadic error (AKA Maybe/option monad or slightly more advanced Either monad), which is the first monad we teach at a class targeting second year undergrad.

The performance comparison is just plain factual error. The functional error code will continue to compute n2 when computation of n1 failed; the same do not happen in the exception version. If you compare codes with completely different traces, of course they will have different performance...

A properly implemented monadic error will return as soon as compute for n1 failed, and never execute the rest of the code. This is the default and idiomatic behavior in Haskell, OCaml, F#, and rust. This performance problem doesn't even happen in LINQ-style handling like in C# and Kotlin (maybe also Typescript?).

The point of monadic error is that its control flow is local, whereas exception is non-local. Specifically, the exception can be handled and occur anywhere in the code base, with no indication on the type level. So programmers will be constantly worrying about whether the exception in a function call is properly handled.

Even worse, when you try to catch a certain error, there is always the risk to accidentally catch similar exceptions in a library call or someone else's code. Writing good code with try-catch requires a lot of principle and style guides. But unlike monads, these principle and rules cannot be enforced by the type system, adding extra burden to programmers.

In fact, we have known for a long time that non-local control flows (goto, break, contiune, exception, long jump) are the breeding ground for spaghetti code. As an evidence, many non-local control flows (goto, long jump) are baned in most languages.

That being said, there are certainly cases, with proper documentation, that exception style is easy to write and understand. But I think they are very specific scenarios, which have to be justified on a case-by-case basis.

Many people don't know usb-c cable is universal, and apple only advertises chargeing iphone with macbook and ipad charger.

I imagine most of these people use an iPhone, and they will certainly waste their money on an "Apple cable".

Plus many of these tech-illiterate people are likely on a lighting iPhone with a barrel jack Windows, they won't even know they need a new charging cable until they realize their old lighting cables don't work.

Probably runs at usb2 speed and charges at 5w.

There are support table on asahi wiki. For example, here is the support page of M2: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/M2-Series-Feature-Support

It is missing thunderbolt, touch id, video decoder, video encoder, DP alt mode, pro res, PCIE etc.

While in the U.S., your mental health data are just on the market, waiting to be brought.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/03/ftc-says-online-counseling-service-betterhelp-pushed-people-handing-over-health-information-broke

In the good case, there will be a class action law suit, and every victim will get approximately 2 dollars back for all their health data sold; but only after giving more sensitive information to the company that distributes these two dollars.

https://www.morrisbart.com/faqs/how-is-money-divided-in-a-class-action-lawsuit/

What a fun time to be alive.

Not "job", these are "volunteering contributions", that are not only time consuming, mentally consuming, and unpaid as well.

This is another case of a foreign word don't have a good translation in English (and vise versa). Both 摆烂 and 让它腐烂 don't have the same tone as "let it rot".

To me, "let it rot" means watching something collapse with a sense of enjoyment. I cannot recall a Chinese word with this exact sentiment of the top of my head. But I can try to explain both Chinese words.

"让它腐烂" is the literal translation of "let it rot", word for word. It don't have the cultural and sentimental meaning behind it, merely stating the fact. More like "let the leave rot in the compost pile".

"摆烂" is probably what the article is referring to. Its meaning is similar to civil disobedience, and 躺平 ("lay flat", another word that was popular couple years ago).

"摆" means put, "烂" means something poorly made, broken, etc. "摆烂", together as a word, means "displaying a broken (bad) attitude, no matter the outside influence". However, "烂" also means rot, which is probably where the translation "let it rot" came from.

The original usage is much more playful, like your cat would lay on the floor no matter what toy or treat you give it, then it is 摆烂. But with the recent increase in pressure for many young people in China. 摆烂 and 躺平 (lay flat) become more of a act of civil disobedience and refusal to participate in the broken system/economy.

So 摆烂 is not a exact translation for "let it rot", but they do share the meaning of "no action" and the sentiment of joy. And "let it rot" sounds much cooler and concise than my explanation.

On the other hand if most of your school's money is in some investment firm, instead of invested in the wellbeing and learning of your employees and students. And you have a investor as the person with the highest salary.

Then your "school" is more of a financial institution than a school. And probably should be taxed as such.

Looking at you, Harvard: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harvard-posts-investment-gain-fiscal-2023-endowment-stands-507-billion-2023-10-20/