Cell carriers will just start requiring the attestation as well. And eventually, even an internet connection will - wifi routers will have to attest to ISP equipment, etc.

The final phase is "AI" monitoring everything you do on your devices. Eventually it won't just be passive, either, but likely active: able to change books you read and audio you listen to on-the-fly without your consent. It will be argued that this ok because the program is "objective".

At this point, I would stop using commercial cell carriers and ISP-provided equipment altogether, even if that means setting up mesh networks with an underground community. User control or bust.

Will you elaborate?

Yes. This was clearly the reason for the ban in the first place.

Websites tend to have more ads and tracking than native apps, and they're still getting your ip address.

The cookie banners are an example of malicious compliance.

It is probably more that Kotlin's order breaks with the most common ordering, and at the cost of more characters. Not to mention the needless variation that has come along with it (e.g. : vs ->)

Having the identifier first makes it easier to parse unambiguously; the C syntax has been historically criticized for not being context-free because of stuff like "A * B" being impossible to parse correctly without knowing whether A is a type or not. While Java doesn't have the equivalent problem, Kotlin keeps its options open wrt future syntactic extensions for type names.

Identifier-first can also be a lot more readable when gnarly (and thus lengthy) types are involved, since you don't have to scan the line to find it. It makes for neater-looking code with multiple declarations one after another, too.

As far as commonality, both syntaxes are very common, and have been so historically as well (roughly speaking, C vs Pascal syntax families). It should also be noted that most new languages go for identifier-first, so if anything, it's more future-proof in this sense.

It is common in term of frequency of new languages using it, perhaps, but not otherwise.

And again, the point is that Kotlin brings along extra characters AND variation. What's next, `fnctn myFunction(x : Int)~ Int { /* code */ }`?

Why? Just to be quirky? To avoid some hypothetical lawsuit?

There are plenty of old languages using it. Pascal/Delphi, Ada etc. That's where the current crop of languages got that syntax from, it's not like it came out of the blue all of a sudden.

And I already explained the reasoning. No, it's not to avoid the lawsuit, it's because many people genuinely find it more readable for various reasons. Which is why it keeps showing up in all kinds of languages that are otherwise wildly different syntactically.

Yes, there are older languages using Pascal style declaration, but any of C,C++,Java dwarf it in terms of popularity and general exposure (thus my use of the term "common").

And again, in the latter part I'm talking about Kotlin's use of 'fun' and ':'.

Arrow is a lambda, just like in Java.

I'm referring to the burden when changing languages. Swift and Rust use -> for the return type.

And C++, C#, and JS use arrow for lambdas, so there's precedent for both.

My comment had nothing to do with lambdas. The point is that Kotlin uses fun and : instead of fn/func and ->, which is a needless and tedious break with other modern languages using Pascal-style function declaration.

Using val instead of let is similarly off-putting.

Agreed. Obviously `func` wasn't going to happen because it is already so similar to Swift, but `fn` at least should be an option.

(current|democratic) governments

are they really able to claim to be democratic if they are analyzing and storing forever all this data without the informed and explicit consent of the surveilled?

I suggest that the number of people who are aware of the full extent of the scale of this surveillance AND have fully thought through all of the future implications of this comapred to the populations is a rounding error. A minority are capable of mouthing something cynical like "oh yeah they record everything." With no further thinking beyond that. Perhaps even here in this community.

Yes, they are able to. Democracy in no way prevents this level of surveillance, clearly. And in fact, the entire surveillance state/economy developed almost entirely under democratic governments. If you were to make any inference based on that alone, then, it would be that it at least enhances or enables it.

Democracy requires the consent of the governed, which I say is absent here.

Dictatorship can and has come out of democracy, this does not make dictatorship democratic.

As well as (current|fascist) governments!

welcome to November 6, 2024

I've been following this for a while now.

Skimming the page, it appears the answer is no, but I'll ask anyway: If all of the project's dependencies are pure Swift (+Foundation) Swift PM packages, is it possible to use them in transparently in the android project. Can they be compiled natively such that the transpiler's kotlin transparently calls into the native (Swift) libraries?

Not yet, but this is a capability that we are actively investigating.