Last I checked Ruby execution was slow compared to Python. That, however, tells you where you shouldn't use it, not *that* you shouldn't use it. And Ruby can easily call C routines (with the usual caveats).

OTOH, in some task spaces, design in Ruby is fast compared to design in Python, and in almost all it's fast compared to design in C. (That said, I generally prefer to design in Python and then re-implement in C++.)

Whether it's serious or not depends on what you're doing. For me it fails only because I require Doxygen compatibility. (Mind you, I would rarely choose to use *only* ruby, but for some things it would be the superior choice.)

OTOH, Ruby is not a low level choice. It's a slightly higher level than Python. And I often design things in Python and then convert them to C++ (with, of course, minor rewrites).

So, "What do you mean by 'serious'?".

Restaurants often use paper checks because many of the kitchen employees rely on check-cashing services instead of traditional banking.

Without the paper checks they'd have to use money orders or something. Maybe cash.

It seems like the counter-suit for inflicting emotional duress would have a possible higher cap, though.

Since his own duress, if any, was used to commercial advantage it would be hard for him to argue it as a financial harm, a necessary feature of a tort.

They probably stand out a lot if you're creeping some chic on the subway.

She's gonna notice you're staring, when she sees the camera she's gonna get even more pissed.

It's not like having glasses is permission to creep.

Have you ever actually tried using Numpy in C?

You can tell how serious someone is about performance based on whether or not they bring out a profiler. If they don't use a profiler, they aren't serious about performance (or maybe they're just clueless).

What do you want to program?

Modern C++ didn't get rid of the gotchas, it just added more of them. It's fine if you're working by yourself, but you can't prescribe what features other people will use (including the writers of libraries you want to use). But old C++ was fine when working by yourself too.

You can add types to your variables in Python. You can use typescript with Javascript.

You can also introspect your types in Ruby, so his point is moot.

There is also the question of why you would add type checking to a dynamic language: if you don't want a dynamic language, why did you choose one? But the reality is most of us don't choose languages anymore, we choose libraries and have to accept whatever language they are attached to.

The author is claiming that Python is readable.

A lot of lawyers prefer checks because a signed check is proof of intention. Not only is it signed, it often has a "reason" memo written.

This can also work in behalf of the person writing the check (in court). For example, if you pay your rent by check, the landlord shows the intent to accept it when they deposit the check. Whereas if you pay with direct deposit, the landlord can claim they had no intention to accept the money.

A lot of times you can have the bank write the check and mail it for you free. Usually it's in the "bill pay" section of the UI.

It comes with nice, official (intimidating) printing. That's what I do on the rare times I need to write a check.

What if when you say the word "demonitize" a few times in quick succession, the video gets flagged? So if you don't want to be in the video you can just keep saying "demonitize demonitize demonitize". Return the power of being a nuisance back to the people.

It's long past time we had a real debate about the law, too. Just because something has been the law for a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean it should remain the law as times change. Clearly there is a difference between the implications of casually observing someone as you pass them in a public street, when you probably forget them again a moment later, and the implications of recording someone with a device that will upload the footage to a system run by a global corporation where it can be permanently stored, shared with other parties, analysed including through image and voice recognition that can potentially identify anyone in the footage, where they were, what they were doing, who they were doing it with, and maybe what they were saying and what they had with them, and then combined with other data sources using any or all of those criteria as search keys in order to build a database at the scale of the entire global population over their entire lifetimes to be used by parties unknown for purposes unknown, all without the consent or maybe even the knowledge of the observed people who might be affected as a result.

I don't claim to know a good answer to the question of what we should allow. Privacy is a serious and deep moral issue with far-reaching implications and it needs more than some random guy on Slashdot posting a comment to explore it properly. But I don't think the answer is to say anything goes anywhere in public either just because it's what the law currently says (laws should evolve to follow moral standards, not the other way around) or because someone likes being able to do that to other people and claims their freedoms would be infringed if they couldn't record whatever they wanted and then do whatever they wanted with the footage. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others, which some might feel should include more of a right to privacy than the law in some places currently protects.

That all said, people who think it's cool to film other human beings in clear distress or possibly even at the end of their lives just for kicks deserve to spend a long time in a special circle of hell. Losing a friend or family member who was, for example, killed in a car crash is bad enough. Having to relive their final moments over and over because people keep "helpfully" posting the footage they recorded as they drove past is worse. If you're not going to help, just be on your way and let those who are trying to protect a victim or treat a patient get on with it.