I honestly think they’d understand it about as much as they’d currently understand it - that is, not understanding it very much at all. So I think it would be about the same level of understanding but it would make a lot more sense and would be easier to calculate with.
It’d also remove a lot of incentives for squeezing your income/pension contribution to align with certain thresholds (i.e. tax bracket thresholds).
For example, a sigmoid function (click link for equation). You’d need to mess with the constants to align the function with a range of incomes but the general shape will be the same - a low, almost-zero taxation rate for those who earn the least, rising to a threshold (perhaps even 100%, but a lower value like 75% would probably work as well), giving a high taxation to those who earn the most.
Honestly I don’t trust these old, slow standards organizations to do well at designing programming languages.
Rust has strong backwards compatibility guarantees so it definitely should.
If there is anything I’ve learned in my 10+ years as an engineer, it’s that there are no good or bad languages, just pros and cons of each in different applications.
I dunno if I agree really - the more languages I’ve learned, the more I see an evolution from less sophisticated, less usable languages to more sophisticated, more usable, modern and just generally better languages.
C and C++ are old, and you can tell. There’s so much complexity and legacy in those languages that it’s crazy. But it’s not just legacy - it’s also bad design choices. There’s a lot of really bad APIs and bad usability and footguns everywhere. You see the same thing in languages like JavaScript (whose design journey has been fraught with peril). Even Java has some bad stuff I would say, mostly from the overzealous insistence on OOP.
However, if you look at some modern languages that were more deliberately designed, you really start to see how they are just intrinsically better. Python, while still being a dynamically typed scripting language which I would never use for large systems, is still leagues better than JavaScript in terms of design and usability I would say. Haskell was born from research and you can really tell - the language just makes sense in a very scientific way - although that does mean ease of use and developer experience has not always been the priority.
Rust was developed for a very particular purpose, basically to provide the same speed as C++ but without any undefined behavior. From that design principle, a lot of good has resulted and Rust is basically an objectively better language than C++. The only thing still keeping C++ in the game is the historical reasons, just due to the sheer amount of code that exists out there in C++. C++ has more support in all kinds of places, but that’s just due to history and Rust will likely gain ground soon enough. For instance, C++ still rules for game development, but this could change within the next 5 or 10 years.
It’s not that surprising when you think about - languages like Python, Haskell and Rust were built on the giant pile of experience the whole industry has amassed from using previous languages. It also helps that we just have more computing power today to make languages like Rust feasible. Rust compile times probably wouldn’t have been realistic 30 years ago.
Which foreign concepts do Rust use? The borrow checker/ownership is new but that’s really the only thing that doesn’t already exist in some other language.
I’m not speaking against progressive taxation, I’m saying the brackets should be continuous so there aren’t any sharp turns in taxation. Right now the brackets make the taxation discrete, but I feel it should be continuous.
A continuous bracket could be defined by a single equation. You’d plug in your income and you’d get out your taxation. No need to look up what bracket you are in.
Why? To me it’d be much more intuitive. I find brackets quite confusing
Never understood the idea of tax brackets. Why isn’t it just continuous? Computers are calculating the tax now anyway, not like it would be infeasible.
I write down the best price I’ve seen, so it’s not necessarily a common price. But I feel like the lowest price something has been sold for recently is a good baseline to compare sales against.
The good price is 60 DKK per kg, though that price is rare. 80 is more realistic and common.
I don’t really run analysis on the numbers. I just use them when I’m shopping to see if a price is good or not.
I have noticed that at least here in Denmark, it never makes sense to buy butter if it’s not on sale, and some sales are still priced badly.
I keep track of prices in cost per kg (or liter) so I am not fooled by shrinkflation and so that I know when a good sale is, without having to remember all prices. Basically just have a giant spreadsheet with the numbers.
when people start unionizing, they just fire everyone
Yea this needs to be made illegal obviously. But that’s hard. And that’s where it becomes political. You can’t get around the fact that it is political unfortunately.
Of course it’s collective bargaining, that’s what I mean with “organize”. I don’t mean just organize within your workplace, I mean organize within entire fields and industries.
Friend, you don’t know how unions work at a core level.
This sounds kind of condescending and mean. In Denmark we have large unions that cover whole industries and fields and they work very well for collective bargaining and securing good levels of compensation, vacation and good work environments. I am myself a member of such a union. So please don’t assume that I don’t know how unions work.
Yea definitely don’t disagree with that. I think that is a factor too. But I think it also kind of goes hand in hand. Do you have similar ideas because you organized and kind of aligned your ideas, or did you organize because your ideas are similar and you easily agreed to organize? It’s kind of a chicken and egg thing.
I’ve also often thought that countries like the US are just too big. There’s too many people to take into consideration. A country like Denmark with ~6 million people is much easier to keep track of and the governance and politics is closer to reality.
It is about politics. You need to organise yourselves better into unions. Then, you strike until you get what you deserve.
Why does Denmark and the rest of the Nordic countries have so high quality of living and happy people? Cause the people realized that you need to work together to get what you want. You need to have solidarity with your other workers to push for better compensation and work environments.
Do this, or you’re doomed.
The fediverse is not really about avoiding censorship as it is about providing choice. That means the choice to listen to who you want to listen to (i.e. what servers to (de)federate from/to), the choice to post whatever you want (but you might get banned from your own instance or any other instance, that’s their prerogative), the choice of administrators and moderators (i.e. which instance you sign up to and what communities you participate in).
All of that stuff doesn’t really have to do with censorship directly, but it has implications for censorship. The fediverse is not built primarily to avoid censorship though, and in some cases it is made to make “censorship” (moderation) easier, rather than harder.
This is indeed pretty unique.
This is really just the fact that Rust has sum types - but those kinds of types have been used in many functional languages (Haskell for example) for a long time.
This is just the same as C and C++ and any other low-level language that requires you to distinguish between the stack and heap.
I mean if you’re only looking at OOP languages then this will be new, but functional languages have done this for a long time.
So yea, I think a big part of what makes Rust great is that it has managed to take these really, really good ideas from functional programming languages and made them work in a language that is not entirely functional. This leads to a perfect blend/best of both worlds with regards to OOP and functional programming :)