While I view python metaclasses (metaprogramming in general) as a tool of last resort, I have to agree with you. I applaud the attempt - I think it fills an important gap between lists/dicts, namedtuples, and classes. Implemented as a metaclass, I think would be much simpler to get it accepted into core python with fewer backward compatibility issues.
I see bash as a lowest common denominator for ops & sys admins. There would be too much friction getting the pack to agree on python, perl, ruby, etc., especially since most of the code would be shell'ing out commands to /bin/sh or /bin/bash anyway.
Bash does leave a lot to be desired when it comes to data structures and error handling, but in some cases it makes the most sense. In those cases, better to have some semblance of sanity via a common lib like bash-infinity or bash-booster.
Although after looking at it some more, it bears little semblance to bash - kills my "common denominator" argument. I prefer a more bash-booster approach: bash plus common functions to standardize on.
Not sure how I feel about characterizing this as a subsidy, but... while tax breaks aren't the same as subsidies, they can effectively act like subsidies in some cases. I found this list more informative than the article or even the Metcalf paper:
The optimist in me wants to believe that our dependence on foreign oil encouraged new domestic oil production via tax policy. I don't think that nudge is warranted any longer. I'm not a fan of governments interfering in markets, but in this case, better to incentivize alternative energy and not fossil fuel.
NPR is my go-to radio station for news but more & more it sounds like National Propaganda Radio, but maybe I'm just turning into a grumpy old conservative.
Agreed. As much as I personally would like to see a smaller federal gov't, I think that if the federal gov't is going to concern itself with something big like energy, health care, or education, then it might as well take it over completely. As much as that scares me, it's probably better than this perversion of a free market society that we currently have.
Especially considering how this started under Bill Clinton's administration (see Title IV) [1]. I remember watching how proud he was of it [2][3]. Maybe the intentions were good but coupled with the repeal of Glass-Steagall and rise sub-prime mortgage crisis makes me wonder.
Interpretation of "preventing its discovery" and what they consider fraud is the concerning bit to me. It's not clear whether they consider using a VPN to access Netflix as fraudulent.
Accessing Netflix is not a crime, so using a VPN to access netflix would not be. If you used a VPN in a different country to access Netflix in order to circumvent their licensing restrictions, it probably becomes a complex matter of international copyright agreements. But that is already against the netflix terms of service no matter which country you are in, so complaints that you should be allowed to do that should be primarily directed at Netflix themselves, not the UAE.
