I have a 4 year old and an 18 month old, and I don't own a car (nor does my partner).
We rent a car ~10-20 times a year, but that's usually for vacations or trips out of the city to visit family. Regular weekly family life we use buses, the underground (metro), trains, or sometimes taxis.
We are considering eventually getting a car, but we've managed for 4 years with children to not need one and it's not been an issue.
Sure, it works in your context, you live in a city with 9 million people and you sometimes rent a car - fine. I live in a city 100x smaller. I literally don't know a person that doesn't own a car, or at least has access to a car.
The context actually get far more granular than it. I lived without a car for 25 years of my life, buses and trains were enough. But all it takes to require a car is having a home 3-4 km from the city center bus stops (which probably covers >50% of population). Unless someone likes walking 1h one way in -10 deg in winter to get to work each day.
A city 100x smaller is a city with 90k population. That's half of the population of the Upper West Side. And the UWS has an area of only 5 square kilometers. Unless you specifically choose to, you are not going to walk 3-4 km.
-10deg winters are certainly going to put a stop to much walking or biking, regardless of whether that's Celsius or Fahrenheit.
Not much of Europe ever gets that low though. Edinburgh occasionally overnight, but it's rarely below about -4c / 24f during commute hours. Berlin mostly the same, Stockholm's maybe the only big European capital that gets to "walking for an hour stands a serious chance of killing you" temperatures for days at a time.
London has abysmal transport situation - any time I needed to traverse through city, it was 3+ hours of buses and trains/subway mix. Of course doing the same with car would be even worse.
Imagine when people don't live in such shitholes, and spend weekends travelling ie to nature or mountains or culture or history or whatever, on non-congested roads. Heck, imagine going to nature even evenings after work, ie for rock climbing. Public transport would be 2-3x that travel time, if possible at all. Also, much more expensive compared to a single car drive, even when accounting all taxes, maintenance and purchasing costs of a car.
Thats how most of Europe lives. City center folks can keep their car-free existence, just please for god's sake don't force it down everybody else's throats like that's the only way to live.
Some people would happily lose half of paycheck to avoid such life, exactly because they spent part of their lives in city centers and know very well what lifestyle they reject, if they can and can afford it. Quadruple that for families with small kids, like my own.
I don't understand how you can spend 3+ hours getting around London. I live in Bristol and when we go to visit London, it takes about 3 hours including the train all the way from Bristol to London. Getting from A to B in London is probably 30-40 minutes tops using the underground.
There are essentially two bits of information in the 'state' of this iterated algorithm:
a) Are all the non-lowest bits zero, or are they the value of the latest N
b) the value of the lowest bit
So the cycle of (N, 1, N+3, 0) corresponds to (A) and (B) being: (0,0), (0,1), (1,1), (1, 0) - i.e. the 4 possible combinations of these states.
Traverse (or foldM) is probably a good start, likely the most useful monad-generic (or applicative-generic) function, that is simple but incredibly powerful and useful.
More generally, Monads essentially support function composition between monadic functions, so you can use it to write code that is agnostic to the monad it runs in. This can let you write e.g. prod. Code that is in IO or Async or Maybe, but for unit testing run it in Identity.
Also, it allows syntax sugar such as do notation that makes it clear to work with even when you know which monad you're working in.
Functions and types can take integers as monomorphization-time template parameters (const generics).
It would be nice if you could pass (n, t) where n is supplied at runtime, the type of t depends on the value of n, and the compiler only lets you use t if your code is valid for all reachable values of n.
eg. fn(n: usize, arr1: &[i32; n], arr2: &[i32, n]) allowed the function body to assume the two slices can be zipped without losing elements.
Note that i don't have enough experience with either dependent types, zz, or wuffs to explain much further.
> Functions and types can take integers as monomorphization-time template parameters (const generics).
Const generics aren't dependent types though; you're still dealing with known constants at compile time. For it to be dependent types, you need something like in your latter example, where a type is dependent on an actual _value_ passed to a function at runtime.
> eg. fn(n: usize, arr1: &[i32; n], arr2: &[i32, n]) allowed the function body to assume the two slices can be zipped without losing elements.
Often you can wrangle the optimizer into eliminating all but one bounds check by passing slices instead and then slicing one of the inputs in terms of length of the other. The Zip iterator adapter also has optimizations for the case of two slices where iteration will only require two length queries at the beginning and no further bounds checks.
Absolutely not. The code of conduct was created to help produce a welcoming and supportive community, and if Tony being kicked out for being neither welcoming nor supportive counts as 'weaponizing', then that's a very strange view. I've met many of the people who were involved in this and they are amongst the nicest, friendliest, accepting people you could meet, and about as far from 'sociopath' as you can imagine.
This idea of a hostile takeover and such is a figment of Tony's imagination and a deliberate distraction equivalent to Trump's referring to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt.
We're actually conflating two separate but correlated events here, as a few folks in that thread have later acknowledged.
Most folks agree that Tony should be off the project. The problem of one overzealous person trying to get Tony to shut up is a separate and regrettable decision on his part. CoCs act to protect people from behavior like Tony's, not to be a cudgel. AFAIK, it's faced subsequent edits to improve that.
It's unfortunate that Tony's become so incapable of modulating his behavior in public that he forces these issues. It's doubly regrettable that folks associated with the same projects he has contributed to could not handle the unusual situation with more grace and poise.
Can second all these suggestions. Also, from my experience all the Haskell events I've been to have been incredibly welcoming and positive, whilst I'm aware there are a tiny subset of abusive people out there, I've never met them nor met anyone who would tolerate them.
Composition is a simple technique to build functions out of multiple simpler functions. It's heavily used in Functional programming but we think it's really useful for everyone, particularly data workers who might be gluing together lots of different modules/libraries/systems. We also use types to help check that functions can compose - this can catch schema mismatch errors early rather than waiting until you run your data pipeline to realise that the output of one function isn't _quite_ what your second function expects.
To be fair it's a 6-bedroom wing, but still a fun fact.