They're not really that interesting. They're "reduce transformers". So, take a reduction operation, turn it into an object, define a way to convert one reduction operation into another and you're basically done. 99% of the time they're basically mapcat.
The real thing to learn is how to express things in terms of reduce. Once you've understood that, just take a look at e.g. the map and filter transducers and it should be pretty obvious. But it doesn't work until you've grasped the fundamentals.
Old? OP showed a pic of an Apple IIe. I bought one for a few thousand bucks (I forget exactly how much). I've been an SE for 44 years. We just added the final abstraction layer.
It’s a real statistical outlier, nearly every language people have moved on from gets negative reviews. Me, it was fun but it wasn’t for me and eventually I concluded a number of the fundamental design decisions were wrong.
Here’s one: Mike Rettig wrote a great post about this in the early days, long since lost to time. Didn’t take that much note of it at the time but grew increasingly convinced over time: shared memory primitives are a bad idea. We would have been better off with an architecture that prioritised message passing. (Not that you can’t do message passing in Clojure, just that it isn’t privileged the way STM is.)
These days, it’s mostly C#. It’s got one of the most sophisticated list processing modules of any language I know of, you can fairly easily write heavily immutable code. It’s a bit niche because Microsoft but it’s nonetheless solid.
My downsides compared to Clojure: no destructuring in parameter declaration. No immutable by default.
But it turns out I prefer typed languages. Which isn’t a thing I’m going to argue about!
No. He used to be good with ideas. Now he's drinking too much of his own poison. His blog posts are bloviated monstrosities incapable of coherently describing the very trivial ideas contained in them.
There’s a context to that you’re missing. The people saying that are usually using the formulation that racism = prejudice + power. So can black people in the U.K. be prejudiced? Yes, definitely. Racist? They’d need to be in a position of authority for it to matter.
Other people use the formulation racism = prejudice about race, and end up talking past each other.
You are correct that there are multiple somewhat-conflicting definitions of racism but “taking past each other” isn’t really what’s happening.
The “classic” definition of racism is something like “a system of oppression based on race”. People pull that out to explain why “[minority] people can’t be racist”, but that that definition isn’t about people. It’s about systems, so if we take that definition, no individual can be racist. Most of the same people who trot out this definition will still call majority-race individuals racist (clearly using a different definition). It’s a rhetorical sleight of hand to swap definitions in a self serving way like this.
> racism = prejudice + power
This seems like an oversimplified perversion of the “systemic” definition and doesn’t make sense if you actually consider it. By this definition a poor white woman basically couldn’t be racist, while a rich black man could.
There's a term for that: systemic racism. The redefining racism thing just comes from a bunch of people who wanted to be racist without admitting racism -- often, ironically, from a position of power.
Systemic racism is something different. It's the legal system being set up in a way that favors/disfavors certain groups. It's not something a person does.
Yes, it's power + racism, which is the idea that the "power+prejudice" redefinition was getting at with the added clarification that the power has to be real rather than in the eye of the beholder. It achieves the stated purpose of the redefinition but without providing cover for people who want a reason why their racism is good while yours is bad.
Yeah, I’m not okay with this. Doxxing is a term with an extremely negative connotation and is often done to people who, bluntly, weren’t hiding or doing anything wrong. The correct term for the same act here is either “accuse” or “unmask”.
So basically it's like Terrorism or Genociding, where if it's against the team you are rooting for, it is that, and if it's not against your in-group it's just War?
I'd rather "doxxing" just mean "de-anonymizing" because that's 1) how I already read it, 2) removes the whole "who is the more moral side in this dispute therefore has the right to make the accusation" problem
So it is doxxing if the doxxed committed wrongdoings from the perspective of... the doxxer? Ideals, morality, alignment, goals and purpose are and have always been a static constant for all humankind. There is no pineapple pizza, it is a lie, for I don't like it, and therefore nobody else ever did either.
doxxing is a term that is commonly reserved for private information that the doxxed individual has an expectation to be treated as such, that is to say, it's not in the public interest.
Someone who breaks the law and is actively searched for obviously has no expectation of privacy, or do you think the people visiting Epstein's island were doxxed?
I know, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make.
Yesterday I drank a beer out in public - a perfectly legal and culturally/morally acceptable thing to do here in The Netherlands, but deemed wrong to such a degree that it is apparently punishable by death in Iran[1].
I have actively broken Iran's moral stance, societal norms, and laws/jurisprudence against public alcohol consumption from without their jurisdiction, and as being a person unbeholden to their societal norms in any way, shape, or form.
Do I obviously now have no expectation of privacy? Is it now okay for these peoples finding themselves to grievously offended by my actions to collect and publish my private data with damaging intent? Is it then doxxing? Am I really a bad person now? Or maybe it depends on the color of your glasses, maybe there exists an entire world outside of ones own cocoon?
You have understand that we're dealing with Morals™, if you're an enemy of the States, anything is on the table. Even some of the things the States is actively calling other countries out for, see Iran for example and how silent the EU, ICC, and NATO is when its "Daddy", as Rutte put it, commits atrocities.
If someone wasn't previously known, only an alias or alter-ego, but you then link those together with a real-life identity, that's very much the definition of "doxxing", at least the original definition, maybe it's different today? Positive or negative doesn't really matter, just like "shooting" or "jumping" in itself isn't positive or negative, it's just a verb.
No, if I kidnap someone it's kidnapping. If the police based on probable cause receive and execute a warrant for someone's arrest, it's an arrest. This is how the state monopoly on violence works.
More to the point, if the police or whoever shoot someone in self defence, that someone is "killed". If I, or the police shoot someone for fun, it's "murder". In both cases the victim is "killed"
True, self defense isn't called murder. But if the government drone strikes an American citizen without a trial or anything, that's "extrajudicial killing", not murder.
Murder is a universal concept. There are also varying criminal laws that are called murder, but just because these exist, one must not be thrown off track: the moral, pre-legal concept of an act known as murder remains unaffected.
'Extrajudicial killing' is just an apologetic euphemism. An indirect term, since murder is usually considered to be a bad thing.
And if the police actually catches the accused and puts them in jail, is that kidnapping? Most verbs have far more semantics than just the most basic before/after state diff.
Well, no, kidnapping is unlawful abduction. But abduction is always abduction, regardless of who does it, police can abduct people too, but when criminals do so, we call it kidnapping, since it's illegal. Not sure what point you were trying to make, but I think it failed to land properly.
Its almost always associated with a private person (ie not police or anyone of a judicial system) releasing personal information with malicious intent.
As the person above you said, semantics are important. This is a judicial system specifically searching for a person they believe to have caused severe criminal harm.
While I don’t think this case is accurately described as Doxxing I also reject the definition that the state can’t commit Doxxing. The reason this situation doesn’t count is because of due process, not simply state action. The state is not infallible, regardless of what immunity may try to establish.
That's a fair point and I agree with you on both counts.
As you said, in this particular case, the respective judicial entities purposefully released the personal information with the intent of arresting both. Whether that is successful or not remains to be seen but that's a different story.
For me personally, I understand doxing to be the release of personal information with malicious, indirect intent. For example, hoping that an angry mob will find the home of a person and attack them, send the person death threats through the post, etc.
Assuming a decently functional justice system, I don't consider an arrest warrant a malicious intent.
The point is the outcome and magnitude of "kidnapping" and "abduction" are the same, so it's not fair people are treated differently if the terms are virtually synonymous. The impact is the same. If it was a truly just system, the people in power would subscribe to the same rules they codify into law.
I have, admittedly, only been on the Internet for thirty-five years or so, but I seem to recall that a long time ago reading about people "doxxing" guys who posted pictures of them torturing cats and dogs.
"Doxxing" certainly doesn't carry a negative connotation in that usage. Unless you live in a culture where torturing domesticated animals is a good thing.
ANd I recall that, before that, hackers would doxx other hackers in the 90s in order to get them arrested. Again, that seems like the exact same usage as here: tying a pseudonym to an IRL for purposes of law enforcement.
There is still an inherent negative aspect to the "Don't Fuck with Cats" doxxing. Vigilantes publicly revealing the identity of (suspected) perpetrators can enable further vigilante action, and this can cause harm to innocent people if the identification was incorrect, or unwittingly impede law enforcement. And that's before considering whether vigilantism is inherently good or bad.
See the canonical example of this going wrong: the Reddit 'investigation' of the Boston Bomber, where someone was misidentified, doxxed, and their family was harassed.
Of course, law enforcement is capable of making the same mistakes. But ideally they have better safeguards, and victims of their negligence have much better recourse.
> that seems like the exact same usage as here: tying a pseudonym to an IRL for purposes of law enforcement.
I disagree. Tying a pseudonym to an IRL persona for purposes of law enforcement is a part of an official investigation.
Doxxing is specifically non-government unmasking and dissemination of that tie for extrajudicial purposes, almost always for harassment. There is a world of difference between them and we should not fudge them together with terminology. My 2c.
What if the government reveals the name of a victim of sexual assault? Is that doxxing? What about a political rival in connection with a made up crime? What about a true but benign crime such as accessing reproductive healthcare?
Most people who dox for a reason they think is justified will nonetheless reject the label of doxing for what they did. They'll say "I didn't dox him, I just discovered publicly available but obscure information about him and posted it."
The real thing to learn is how to express things in terms of reduce. Once you've understood that, just take a look at e.g. the map and filter transducers and it should be pretty obvious. But it doesn't work until you've grasped the fundamentals.
reply