I use F# every day, both in my open source and professional work. Love seeing the language continue to improve without going off the rails! I'm looking forward to using the "and!" computations in this release in particular (though I swear they'd already been released).
Edit: oh this post is from November! That's why I thought I'd read about those computations before.
It's been ages since I started using it, but I don't think it was any problem in particular. I think I just happened to watch a video by Scott Wlaschin one day and was intrigued by the weird language and the things he was doing with the type system, having only been familiar with object oriented programming at that point in my life. I kept coming back to it and eventually it became my bread and butter.
What I like most about it is the type system (discriminated unions, etc.). It's really powerful and intuitive, without letting me go overboard "big braining" the perfect type for every situation like I tend to do with e.g. typescript or haskell. F# is also great because we can access the full dotnet runtime and nuget ecosystem. I have several projects where I mix C# and F#, and they're perfectly compatible.
> It looks like these cameras are infrared and intended to see gestures from the wearer.
I had an APV for a while, controlling it with just gestures was sweet. If they're looking to bring those kinds of gestures to other Apple devices via AirPods (i.e. beyond just bringing more gestures to the AirPods), I'm intrigued.
Copilot is shown as having policy issues in the latest reports. Oh my, the irony. Satya is like "look ma, our stock is dropping...", Gee I wonder why Mr!!
> I also said it was the “final straw”. No worries at all if you’re not familiar with that expression. It means that there were lots of similar slights previously, and that the event I mentioned, while minor, was the one that finally pushed me to make the decision I made.
This sort of patronizing assholery is childish and unbecoming. Your comment would've been better without it.
> This kind of crap ticks me off and makes me respond in kind. I should be better, sure, but sometimes I'm not.
I think we're all struggling to identify any other possible interpretation of, and I quote, "obviously there was a solution, probably an easy one, but I didn’t even look for it". Your words are not ambiguous - you knew this would be an easy issue to solve, and you did not bother trying to solve it. And you say this as though it's someone else's fault.
Should Tim Apple come to your desk personally every morning and ask which MacOS defaults it would suit you to remove? Are we to understand that the obvious security benefits of sandboxing filesystem access pale in comparison to any inconvenience for you, even if that inconvenience is you merely having to bother to open the settings?
You're being totally unreasonable, and you're acting mean when your unreasonableness is picked up on. Learn to take a note, particularly when you're in the wrong, rather than becoming an irrationally defensive ball of spittle and venom. It'll serve you better in the long run.
I'm working on publishing a big update to my open source .NET project, ShopifySharp. I recently finished a custom graphql query builder generator (written in some sloppy F#) which will be included in the next release, which means all of the types, queries and mutations in Shopify's graphql schema will have a matching fluent-style query builder in ShopifySharp.
Aiming to get that published in the next day or two, and then I plan on diving in on a complete rewrite of the book I wrote on building Shopify apps with .NET and C#. It's long overdue, the book still uses Shopify's deprecated rest API and some methods that aren't supported anymore, but I've been holding off on an update until I could rewrite it with the new fluent query builders in ShopifySharp.
Outside of my OSS stuff, I'm continuing working on my SaaS app, Stages (https://getstages.com) [¹], which has been paying my mortgage and bills. Customers have been asking for lots of features lately and I'm anxious to get a particular one finished (filtering orders and events before they come in and are saved to the app) soon. It's my biggest source of churn right now.
[¹] Elevator pitch: the app is like a pizza tracker for your orders that have a custom or long, drawn out production process. Your staff and customers can see exactly where an order is in the process without calling or emailing you. Shopify only for now but one of main dev goals is to move beyond Shopify.
> edit: and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ). if you cant even manage that, what are you doing here?
Is this irony? You literally just posted about arguments from vocal minorities on HN and other social media driving people away.
In the immortal words of the elder Elaine Benice: it means whatever you want it to mean. What I want is for someone to respond to my message as opposed to a lazy button press. But I dream.
I've been a paying Github user for years now, and as an open source maintainer who uses Github Actions, I'm annoyed that my money has been funding AI bullshit instead of fixes and improvements for their core offering.
> But here's Pfizer CEO: "When [we] do the math, shall we reduce the US price to France’s level or stop supplying France? We [will] stop supplying France. So they will stay without new medicines. The system will force us not to be able to accept the lower prices.”
This person is a less than neutral source in an industry that's already infamous for lying through its teeth to grind out every red cent from its customers. I would lend precisely zero credence to what he says when he's trying to justify why his poor billion dollar company wouldn't be able to lighten up on its wholesale fleecing of American customers.
"Poor billion dollar company" cannot possibly be a slur in an industry that requires $2 billion in investment (and rising!) to make each subsequent product. Maybe if the product were a luxury good that the world could do without, but it's not, and we cannot.
You don't need to trust anything except that left to their own devices, those greedy pharma companies will price as efficiently as possible in order to maximize revenues. Despite this revenue maximization, the industry as a whole is nearly uninvestable.
Any deviation from the optimal pricing will reduce their overall revenues, which will obviously make the industry even less investable.
In an R&D heavy sector means they will no longer make new products, i.e. no new breakthrough medications that you or I or our parents or children may need.
Sure, I doubt Pfizer et al will just outright stop selling medications to France. Far more likely they will both reduce US prices and raise EU+ prices, but this still ultimately results in fewer drugs for fewer people today, and definitely much slower innovation toward new drugs by virtue of having less cash on hand and much worse expected ROI.
You do not need "trust" whatsoever, this is just basic logic.
> Sure, I doubt Pfizer et al will just outright stop selling medications to France. Far more likely they will both reduce US prices and raise EU+ prices
This is my point – quoting the man on what he says will happen is pointless because he's just using scary hypotheticals to make the best case to keep the cash hose turned on. He's not some altruistic saint bestowing new formulations upon the world if only he had more money, he's a slimeball pharma CEO trying to balance that R&D with reaping maximum profits.
Would lowering prices for Americans mean the world has less R&D bankrolled by American consumers? Probably. But the current situation is untenable.
> Please engage with the substance of the argument put in front of you.
Back at you bub. My original comment was addressing why a quote from the guy who would be most affected by drug prices changing is hog wash, and you skillfully dodged my whole point to talk about R&D, investments and revenue. I didn't write my comment to dive into those things, I wrote it to point out that Pfizer's CEO would say anything if it means his company will get more money.
Your point being that you don't trust the words of a pharma CEO?
Fine! Why is that relevant to me?
Just because you're starting from the prior of "pharma CEOs are liars" doesn't mean everyone else is. Some people find it quite helpful to hear from the most powerful and most informed people on issues they want to learn about, even if you have to discount them due to conflicted interests (spoiler alert: nearly everyone who's well-informed on an issue will have some type of conflict to be discounted).
Evidently you are fine writing the words of Pfizer's CEO down to zero value, which is fine!
That's why I provided an alternative path by which applying your own critical thinking skills would get you to the same conclusion.
"Applying basic logic gets me to a similar conclusion as Pfizer's CEO, but Pfizer's CEO is a liar and conflicted and can't be trusted, therefore... [ ??? ]"
Edit in response to your edit: Don't act as if I introduced revenue/investment/R&D/etc after you raised the issue about Bourla's quote. That was the entire basis of the conversation from the start. Profoundly low-quality contribution to just chime in with "pharma CEO is conflicted." Yeah, everyone is aware of that. That's why there's an entire comment around the quote.
Literally you yourself said a few comments above that you "doubt Pfizer et al will just outright stop selling medications to France." It sounds like you don't trust his words either, so why are you going to bat for this guy?
> That's why I provided an alternative path by which applying your own critical thinking skills would get you to the same conclusion.
To be clear, the only thing I've taken issue with here is his own words and how you've quoted him. I don't believe I've said anything regarding your overall position on drug prices and pharma profits, so it's weird that you're attacking me like I've specifically taken a position against it.
Lmao imagine thinking that separately deriving the same conclusion using such sophisticated economic knowledge as “how prices work” was equivalent to “taking someone’s word at face value.”
You can derive the same conclusion yourself! As stated over and over, much to your chagrin and denial, because “pharma bad.”
Americans are willing to pay higher prices because direct to consumer advertising is allowed, making people more willing to pay a higher price because an ad convinced them it will be worth it. If people wouldn't pay, then pharma companies would lower the prices.
Fix the demand side and the supply side will adjust.
I would suggest it's the reverse. Americans accept higher prices because they have many many layers of intermediation.
Americans pick their employer. Their employer picks their health plan. Their health plan picks which drugs are covered and which doctors and pharmacies they can use.
With the "innovation" of vertical integration between insurers, healthcare providers, and PBMs, there is effectively zero incentive for health insurers to manage costs, because those costs show up as revenue for their own subsidiaries. This is actually hugely advantageous for insurers because they are required by law to spend a certain percentage (~80%) of their members' premiums on healthcare goods and services, not profit or business development.
Well... if you own the pharmacies, the PBMs, the GPOs, and especially the healthcare providers... you can arbitrarily siphon money at any % rate you want while increasing the gross dollar intake by simply raising prices at your subsidiary companies!
All of this is well documented. Here are a few places to start:
Moltbook-mania gave me strong The Lifecycle of Software Objects by Ted Chiang vibes. Not in a good way either; I did not sympathize with the main character in that story at all and found the digients – and the way people talked about them – pretty cringey.
Edit: oh this post is from November! That's why I thought I'd read about those computations before.
reply