Rephrasing the news would take effort. Based on the fake news I see in my feed(s), it's the sheer lack of effort needed that spreads it so fast.

If people have to internalize what they've just read before passing it on, we'll not only get less of it, we MIGHT get people actually reading sh*t and not just fwding based on the headline they just skimmed.

But, how do you know they're REAL blondes, brunettes, and redheads?

Oh... NVM

The problem is two-fold. Features and cost.

1) Not all sand is equal. Not noted here but covered in a recent Planet Money podcast is that the sand that is stolen often has characteristics that make it particularly popular for why it's being stolen. The stolen sand often has a color or texture that makes it wanted elsewhere. For example: much of the beach sand is uniformly the same shape (cubic) and size. This makes it ideal for construction, where a powdery, desert sand wouldn't work. While you can sieve crushed rock to any uniform size, sand is also hundreds of different kinds of "rock": calcium, silicon, and some of it with substructure that changes its characteristics further.

2) It's cheaper to steal (or "buy") than to make. From the podcast, one poorer neighborhood came out one morning to find that much of the public beach had been carted away in the night. Some sleuthing found that a nearby hotel development had a crappy beach, and taken off with it. While some science showed that the sand was "theirs", in many parts of the world with pretty beaches, courts and police are susceptible to bribery or threats. In the story, it leaned more on threats and soon the case waned and the locals had a beach of mud. For the price of a few trucks and a few thugs, the hotel owner got a brand new beach that dramatically increased the value of their property.

While technology COULD solve this problem, it really can only pull this off if you can get the cost to below that of hired force. That's what a lot of the tragedy of the commons come down to; if you can benefit by being a greater asshole and escape the consequences, then you win.

DNS looks up YOU!

No reason to have had hope Perl 6 works well. It may have come to late and thus is now an obscure language. But it works and is quite interesting and good.

I think the reason is the Perl community evolved out of multiple other communities who each brought with them distinctive styles. You had the shell people (system admins). You had the Sed/Awk people. You had C people. You had LISP people. Then starting with Perl 4 you picked up HTML/CSS people. Then you had the influence of early version of Javascript and VBScript. Finally starting with Perl5 you had the migration of C++/Java people. Perl allowed them all to keep writing the way they liked.

Seems to me that Perl6 has taken the whipuptitude that Perl originally did towards Bash/Sed/Awk and done it to Haskell / Clojure. You can fairly easily mix in self evaluating data structures while still being able to do a print statement. There are even more ways to do it :)

That lack of submenus staying open was the the thing that got me off of Mate. I tried to like it, but I haven't been able to break the muscle memory of moving diagonally to a submenu and expecting it to stay open. XFCE under Xubuntu is working quite well for me right now.

The US postal system is also one of the largest single union employers in the country. Yet another reason that many are trying to "drowned it in a bathtub."

The Post Office is additionally hamstrung by Congress micro-managing it. Want to get rid of Saturday delivery? No. Want to raise the price of a stamp? No. It's really quite tragic. Like that story about the boy who keeps commanding a grasshopper to jump and pulling off legs each time it fails, then loudly proclaiming that it must be deaf.

foldl in Erlang is tail recursive automatically. foldr is not by default tail recursive in Erlang, Though I should mention foldr is tail recursive in languages like Haskell, and there are implementations of foldr in terms of foldl and visa versa. The conversions between foldr & foldl (depending on which is tail recursive) make explicit what needs to be done to move from non-tail recursive to tail recursive for recursions. Yet another reason you want to use those.

And as for can't follow. Your claim was about the messiness that these imperative artifacts remained and were worse. To avoid the messiness, you have to use the looping structures of functional programming Doing functional programming imperatively, of course is going to be messy. Doing functional programming functionally and you get the benefits.

OK I gotcha. It is shockingly easy in lazy code to write algorithms that are quadratic in memory. Arguably that's one of the big advantages of using standard morphisms and not recursions.

I also agree it is often (very often) easier to write an explicit recursion; and only then if you have to create a morphism structure. That's a different claim though than with loops. Once the algorithm is written as a loop you have all the pieces for a standard design pattern using morphisms. Which was my point to grandparent. The classification of all possible recursions is coming along nicely but we still have about 50 types of morphisms that (at least in theory) can show up. In practice hylomorphism covers most cases for recursions, and how to do this can be non-obvious. But hylomorphism covers all cases, with simple transformations of for-loops. Having written a for-loop you have the structure you need to do the morphism transformation, its the same work. My point above was about the easy case, not the hard case of general recursion you are talking about.

As an aside, I believe (not an expert) the condition for a graph traversal to be hylomorphic is that the operations follow the distributive law. Assuming I'm right on this, that's not a whole lot of math you just check your operation and apply one of the standard graph traversals.

Here we disagree. I think the general way you program that sort of thing is via. a fold. I don't know Erlang but it has the classic folds:

foldl(Fun, Acc0, List) -> Acc1
foldr(Fun, Acc0, List) -> Acc1
Fun = fun((Elem :: T, AccIn) -> AccOut)
Acc0 = Acc1 = AccIn = AccOut = term()
List = [T]
T = term()

foldl is the preferred one for Erlang

I'm going to argue there are no special cases that don't fit.

Basically
the set of all possible for loops (no side effects) \subset the set of all possible hylomorphisms (generalizations of map reduce) \subset of all possible recursions.

That's why I wanted to see a real example, because of mathematically they can't exist.

As for accumulators over loops those can be usually handled via. a fold providing the reduction operation is associative. The initial and final state never present a problem.

___

I'll agree I was considering lazy part of functional. At this point I think purity allows for laziness and laziness demonstrates a lot of the advantages of purity. Otherwise you are backed to mixed paradigm which I dealt with other places in this thread. As for lazy with large amounts of data, Hadoop is lazy. So I'm not sure what you are saying.

I was treating (**) as your second case, ignoring the (**2) as a specific function. Remember the idea originally was to show a simple example of the concept for Python.

** is a function of two variables. The 2 is coming from a different context. **2, as a squaring function is a closure. No need to be complex about closures.