Yeah, tail call elimination, is definitely doable.
Python famously does not have it because "Language inventor Guido van Rossum contended that stack traces are altered by tail-call elimination making debugging harder, and preferred that programmers use explicit iteration instead".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call
Because tax is not your bill from 'government Corp ', its your contribution to the community, to your tribe. And we have explicit goals for this, besides bringing revenue (like the strongest back should carry the heaviest burden).
When we have communal contributions in other settings, your contribution is usually not a secret.
It is meant to give the tax system more legitimacy, that you don't gave to wonder if people sneak out of their contribution, you can check. It also leads to yearly debates about the tax system as the list of the richest(usually inherited) is published together with what they pay in income tax vs wealth tax.
Previously you could check up anyone anonymous. These days you have to log inn, and they get a notification. But the list of the richest and their tax contribution gets published in the newspaper.
This has also the effect of fueling envy, and allows employers to discriminate you if they see that you have side income (or if you don't). Why make all of this fuss about RGPD if private data is in the open?
And why not include medical data as well? The "tribe" has the right to know how much each one costs, right?
It is usually those with little power that suffer when you do that, and those with a lot of power that suffer from financial openness. I ask this in the most naive way possible I think the Pandora Leak was a good thing, do you not agree?
Richer people have many ways to protect themselves from society, unlike poorer people who have to bear the envy of others and can't escape it. Just ask any homeless person.
A rich man can just (and likely should, given the comments here) leave the Swedish crab basket.
Having society obsessed with watching how their neighbor is doing is a very good way to get everyone to look away, while, in the case of Sweden, a single family owns a large part of the stock exchange.
First, lets me clarrify that I am trying to explain how this practise is justified in Norway, I am not arguing for or against it. Some of the justification is pure cultural traits, which you can try to understand even if you dont agree with them yourself. Also note that this is not completely non-controversal, but it seems like the current setup (where you need to log in to search, in addition to the public lists in the newspaper) has reasonable strong support.
This has also the effect of fueling envy
Yeah, I guess the same feeling can look like both "envy" and "sense of justice", depending on where you see it from. But we can't protect everyone from their feelings.
and allows employers to discriminate you if they see that you have side income (or if you don't).
I have never heard about this, and I don't really see the dynamic here. What definitely IS a effect is that it makes it a bit harder for employers to give employees with equal tasks very different salaries.
Why make all of this fuss about RGPD if private data is in the open?
Because this is seen as, at least partially, public data.
And why not include medical data as well? The "tribe" has the right to know how much each one costs, right?
No. And this is where you must just belive me when I say that this is just a truth about the cultue, most people (in Scandinavia) would not agree with argument. Your contribution is public, your weakness is private.
Let me give an example: The local kid socker team is organizing a cup, and the parrents need to help organizing, making and selling cookies, etc. This is organized through an app, where you sign up for tasks, and everyone can see what you are commiting to contribute. The same team also have an arrangement where the(small) membership fee can be waivered if you can't afford it, or you can get help buying equipment(shoes) for your kid. This is handled by you letting the trainer know in private, and he will discretely handle it.
Common citizens aren't supposed to be blockwarts judging who deserves or not their money.
> But we can't protect everyone from their feelings.
We can protect ourselves from the feeling of others by not sharing this data.
> equal tasks very different salaries
Unless you are an unqualified factory worker on a line with quantifiable output, in a service economy "equal tasks" are highly subjective.
> This is handled by you letting the trainer know in private, and he will discretely handle it.
Maybe the poor kid would rather not tell the trainer that he is poor and face paternalistic attitudes? And the rich kid wouldn't be reminded all the time that he is guilty of having richer parents? Add race/migration and you'll quickly tolerate bullying because of "social reasons".
As I said above, I explain the cultural norms making it seen as acceptable. I am not trying to convince you, and I am certainly not interested in a bunch of random tangental discussions.
Maybe the poor kid would rather not tell the trainer that he is poor and face paternalistic attitudes? And the rich kid wouldn't be reminded all the time that he is guilty of having richer parents? Add race/migration and you'll quickly tolerate bullying because of "social reasons".
It would be the parrent who ask the trainer to have it waived, not the kid. No kid, rich or poor, would know if they received help in paying the bill or buying equipment. The whole point of the example was exactly that while peoples contribution is public, their requirement for support is not, so there would be no cultural acceptance for the arguement "since taxes are open so should healtcare-usage". And again, this is a explanation of the cultural context, it is irrelevant if you feel like that culture is good or bad.
I don't follow. It allows citizenry to identify wage discrimination and other malpractices, people can get paid on the value of their work and not just how good they are at gaming the wage negotiations. Plus most of the civilised world has this thing called a "union" and "workers rights" that generally prevent your imagined scenario from happening.
What has medical data got to do with this? You can't very well go up to a disabled person and say, hey, you cost society more money, maybe you should have been born less disabled, you cost too much, pay more. Societal safety nets exist for a reason, and how much one is compensated for equal labour as your coworker... I don't see how it's related at all to the "make the disabled pay more" eugenics argument.
> It allows citizenry to identify wage discrimination and other malpractices, people can get paid on the value of their work and not just how good they are at gaming the wage negotiations.
Ah yeah, so you are for mob justice. "Value of their work" is a highly subjective topic, which everyone is an expert on, of course.
> Plus most of the civilised world has this thing called a "union" and "workers rights" that generally prevent your imagined scenario from happening.
Worker rights and unions don't prevent employers from setting wages freely with their employees. An employee with 0 revenue has much less negociating power if the employer knows about it.
> you cost too much, pay more
I'm pretty sure people can have envy about the disabled person earning as much as they do while he/she doesn't have to wake up in the morning. Or some disabled person would like to evolve freely in the society without having everyone know about it.
> eugenics argument
Sweden sterilized disabled and socially unfit people for a long time, until 2013, so yeah, I totally see it happening. Incidentally I have seen racial and social mappings made out of the Swedish public data in the past, so it's far from anecdotic.
Thats not at all a leason I learned during my years with game theory. It sounds like a life-lesson completely orthogonal to game-theory.
And wrong I must add, ignoring people who have made an actuall change in the world (although its true that most people end up making very little difference either way).
If only any of their former leaders and one of the most famous people ever had said something like "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will"...
Well maybe that kind of company would've been aggressive about always being competitive, yeah? Instead of whatever Tim Cook is doing...
(I agree with your comment. To add). Fairphone can be gotten with stock Android, but also "/e/OS", which is a fork of LineageOS, and presents itself as both more privacy focused and de-googled than stock Android.
So it also comes down to what kind of OS you want. I find SailfishOS interesting, but I also really like the hardware of the Fairphone.
Honestly, Openzl looks even cooler! It would be cool to have it integrated with parquet and avro encoders. If I understand correctly the compressed files should be decompressable with standard tools.
Given the outcome in Venezuela (and Trumps relationships with dictators in generally), it don't seem like that is something Trump necessarily sees as a bad outcome. As long as the dictatorship trades oil and let some American companies in, they can be as dictatorial as they want.
To achieve a better digital world, where technology works for people
rather than against them, several steps must be taken:
1. Rebalance power between service providers and
consumers. People should be allowed to control their digital
experiences and decide how they want to use products that
they own. It should be possible and practical to switch to
alternative service providers, or tweak services they already
use to suit their needs and preferences.
2. Tackle dependency on Big Tech. To lay the groundwork for
innovative products and services and pave the way for
alternatives to Big Tech, competition in digital markets must be
restored. Technology based on principles such as openness,
interoperability and portability must be advanced through
strategic investments. For example, the public sector should
leverage its power as a major procurer to support alternatives
to big tech through exploring options for ethical procurement
of technology services.
3. Double down on the enforcement of existing laws. Far
from hindering innovation, regulations provide crucial
guardrails to guide innovation and ensure a level playing field.
Weak enforcement allows big tech to continue its damaging
practices at the cost of freedom of choice, service quality, and
innovation. To remedy this, enforcement of existing laws must
be strong and vigorous. This includes the DMA and
competition laws more broadly, but also other digital rules
such as the GDPR and consumer law.
4. Close the existing legal loopholes by adopting a strong
Digital Fairness Act. Increase legal certainty and address
loopholes in the legislation to better protect people for
instance against deceptive and addictive design, and unfair
personalisation.
Python famously does not have it because "Language inventor Guido van Rossum contended that stack traces are altered by tail-call elimination making debugging harder, and preferred that programmers use explicit iteration instead". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call
reply