What structural change would permit a worker to take initiative and say "Hey, these working conditions are wrong/inadequate and I will not safely do my job today unless proper changes are made", without risk of getting fired by higher-ups?
Empowering workers to make safety-critical meta-decisions does not seem to be a feature of actually-existing capitalism.
> What structural change would permit a worker to take initiative and say "Hey, these working conditions are wrong/inadequate and I will not safely do my job today unless proper changes are made", without risk of getting fired by higher-ups?
Well, what you are describing is a strike, and it is currently illegal for ATC to strike, so in theory one possible structural change would be to make it legal for the workers to do what you're describing.
What you're describing is already well known in the aviation industry. Promotion of a positive safety culture is a key element if the Safety Management System (SMS) framework
This comes to mind how during the Boeing news scandals, commenters would confidently argue "Flying is still ridiculously safe, statistically speaking", "these things happen every day, just underreported", and "you/people are irrational for not flying Boeing". It's a very curious argument to me. Is the ATC infrastructure issue analogous or not, etc.
You can have both. I.e. complain about safety breaches, push to get back on track safety wise, but still decide to fly as it is safe enough. Guess it is being practical.
It is strange. What is importa t is, are things getting better or getting worse? As they say, it’s not the fall that kills, bit the impact. Are we falling?
Maybe US media, hardly an unbiased news source about US events, especially when hundreds of billions are flying around about incompetent massive employer and lobbyist.
Nowhere else in the world you would hear such statements. Boeings simply disappeared from Europe, those few that were here before. I am sure they are still used somewhere but I haven't flown any in past 7-8 years. Heck, I haven't seen any in South east Asia neither (but that may be due to luck).
I check this with all bookings, no way I am flying that piece of shit if I can anyhow avoid that, not alone and quadruple that with family.
That is just simply false. There are many boeings flying in europe. Just by randomly clicking around on flightradar24 I found multiple right now in the air.
I.e. a request coming into the top-level server will go into the collections server or the query server or the indexation server. Each server is further broken down (collections has 4 routes, query has 4 routes, indexation has 5 routes.)
So lets try making the the arguments of just the collections server explicit. (It will take me too long to try to do them all.)
You can 'list' collections, 'delete' a collection, merge collectionA into collectionB, or get the directory where the collections live. So the input (the lambda term(s) we're trying to make explicit) can be () or (collectionName) or (collectionNameA, collectionNameB) or ().
In order to put these lambda terms explicitly into the source code, we need to add four places to put them, by replacing collectionsServer with the routes that it serves:
The practical upside is that it makes using higher-order functions much smoother, with less distracting visual noise.
In Haskell this comes up all over the place. It's somewhat nice for "basic" cases (`map (encode UTF8) lines` vs `map (\ line -> encode UTF8 line) lines`) and, especially, for more involved examples with operators: `encode <$> readEncoding env <*> readStdin` vs, well, I don't even know what...)
You could replace the latter uses with some alternative or special syntax that covered the most common cases, like replacing monads with an effect system that used direct syntax, but that would be a lot less flexible and extensible. Libraries would not be able to define their own higher-order operations that did not fit into the effect system without incurring a lot of syntactic overhead, which would make higher-order abstractions and embedded DSLs much harder to use. The only way I can think of for recovering a similar level of expressiveness would be to have a good macro system. That might actually be a better alternative, but it has its own costs and downsides!
Mathematically it's quite pretty, and it gives you elegant partial application for free (at least if you want to partially apply the first N arguments).
Well, I disagree, you are, effectively, calling entire textbooks and CS sub disciplines merely "pretty", which is again the strawman I am referring to. This is like calling theoretical Turing award level advances mathematically pretty. I hope you see why that is problematic and biased framing.
More plausible is that Haskell designers recognized that Currying is a fundamental phenomenon of the lambda calculus so it needed some kind of primitive syntax for it. I'm not an expert but that is the most reasonable supposition for a rationale to start with. One can then argue if the syntax is good or not, but to do away with currying entirely is changing the premise of recognizing fundamental properties of Turing-complete functional programming language paradigms. It's not about prettiness, it's about the science.
Very much so, I hold this view as someone who reads a bit of Critical Theory; Catherine Liu recently makes a case for this as well as disparate other public intellectuals from Chomsky to Zizek have also generally critiqued CT academics, postmodernists, etc. The basic argument is something like, Frankfurt School itself had a tension over their primary text (Dialectic of Enlightenment) by Adorno and one faction basically got totally divorced from Marxist ideas, and the result of that was bad theories and bad praxis and then even worse being coopted as a capitalist intelligentsia. See also Thomas Picketty's Brahmin Left. I'm oversimplifying but there is a continued strain of this criticism (albeit largely on deaf ears).
I miss having snappy menubar lists, at the Apple Store yesterday I noticed on the Neo that the transparencies and iconified menu items with shortcut glyphs are still perceptibly less buttery smooth.
It has even regressed, I'm still on my High Sierra 2011 MacBook Air, but on my mom's M3 Air I can't help but observe that they did all that engineering to reduce the black bezel around the lid, only for Tahoe to have overly rounded windows and huge title bars.
It is giving me choice paralysis, last week I made a mental graph of the ones I wanted and went over all node pairs choose 2, now it's down to waiting for a fall M5 Mac mini paired with either: a MacBook Neo, or an iPad Air 13"; both options are very attractive for my intended usage though the latter seems higher risk since I've never used a 13 inch tablet before.
The iPad gives you touch interaction, hand-held operation, a higher quality (albeit smaller) display, and a more resilient operating system (albeit managed).
The Neo gives you a real keyboard, a bigger screen, and unified UX/software support with your desktop computer.
But are you sure you need two devices? Why not just get a MacBook Air (with the same spec as your proposed Mac mini) along with a USB-C dock accessory to connect charging/keyboard/mouse/video with a single cable? Also don't underestimate the value of having a battery in your "desktop" computer. It's a free UPS.
I woke up to see my other comment downvoted by some rando, but I honestly think this is the best line in the entire article and Gruber's wish is telling (I quote the line only here, but it is best read in context of the original passage):
"I wish Apple would make a MacBook that’s akin to the iPhone Air — crazy thin and surprisingly performant."
What this reflects is all those comments and users, myself included, over the years saying "I would get an iPad if only it could run MacOS", and the ensuing discussion to the effect of why Apple won't do it, the chips are just as powerful, etc. A tablet Mac is a lot of people's (both casual and tech) holy grail in portable computing, justified/sensible or not in terms of technology and UI form factor. Gruber's wish is precisely the expression of this not unpopular sentiment. And also the Tahoe iPad OS features is a clue that Apple knows this.
Empowering workers to make safety-critical meta-decisions does not seem to be a feature of actually-existing capitalism.
reply