> Czechia is a European country you want to look at for an example that you can have gun laws that allow civilians to own handguns and carry them for defensive purposes without problems.
Let's see:
--- start quote ---
A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody subject to acquiring a firearms license. Gun licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license – by passing a gun proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record.
the issuing authority (police) firearm owners' database is connected to information needed for a background check and red flags any incidents that may lead to loss of license requirements. Similarly, health clearance by the general practitioner is needed for periodical renewal of license (every ten years).
* also very specific restrictions depending on license *
Obtaining the license requires passing a theoretical and practical exam.
(I don't know why your comment got flagged, since it's factual. Whoever did this - please don't, this is not a feature meant to be used indicate your disagreement.)
I'm not claiming that Czech gun laws are identical to US. I'm claiming that you can have shall-issue concealed carry and broad access to "assault weapons" for civilians without gun violence problems as seen in US.
And yet all of these issues, when they come up, are invariably happening in the "land of the free", not in the "totalitarian state dystopia of the EU and neighboring countries".
> What I like about Redux is that it takes the immutable functional approach
Strange that you don't like spaghetti, but then praise Redux that is spaghetti exemplified: dozens of functions, and wrappers, and hooks eerywhere. Trying to trace how a value gets changed through the three-four layers of wrappers is like pulling teeth through the anus.
And looking at the current reincarnation of this abomination, it is marginally less spaghetti, and converging on the same signals code that everyone is converging on.
Redux Toolkit is very impressive, especially with TypeScript. I'd agree that there was a lot of boilerplate in the before-times, but today, it's not "marginally less," it's significantly less boilerplate. The debugging tools are top notch as well, I can trace values and their changes pretty easily these days.
The main point of Redux is that it follows functional programming paradigms of immutable data, which makes reasoning about changes much easier. Compare that to the global state everywhere of signals/reactive/observables-based approaches like MobX or RxJS.
> Compare that to the global state everywhere of signals/reactive/observables-based approaches like MobX or RxJS.
What are you on about? Redux is literally about global state everywhere. But with three to four layers of abstractions between.
You define your state globally. Then use hooks to fetch data from that global state, and then "dispatch" aka call actions on that global state. If something else somewhere else updates data in that global state your component will be affected if it uses that data.
But it also requires you to write an insane amount of useless stuff like "define your store, then reducers, then slices, then god knows what" to arrive at almost the same code:
// redux
import { useSelector, useDispatch } from 'react-redux'
import { decrement, increment } from './counterSlice'
export function Counter() {
// note how we reach into magical global state that useSelector knows about
const count = useSelector((state: RootState) => state.counter.value)
const dispatch = useDispatch()
return <>
<button onClick={() => dispatch(increment())}>Increment</button>
<span>{count}</span>
<button onClick={() => dispatch(decrement())}>Decrement</button>
</>;
}
// solid
// state is immutable. It's also not magical, you explicitly refrence and import it
//
// increment and decrement would use a `set` function to update the store to required value
// see https://www.solidjs.com/docs/latest/api#createstore
// and https://www.solidjs.com/docs/latest/api#updating-stores
//
import { state, increment, decrement } from './counter-store';
export function Counter() {
return <>
<button onClick={() => increment()}>Increment</button>
<span>{state.count}</span>
<button onClick={() => decrement()}>Decrement</button>
</>;
}
Solid is basically using the same Flux architecture that Redux and Vuex is using then, with stores and actions. It's just more hidden away than in Redux which is more explicit. Yes, I do want to explicitly see what my data store looks like and in Redux I'm able to. That I have to create slices (which are automatically mapped to TypeScript by the way) is fine with me, it's only a few lines more than in your Solid example.
To add, this is also why I explicitly mentioned Rx and Mob, which are not as clean as the Flux architecture in terms of creating spaghetti code. And I believe we are also defining spaghetti differently. Spaghetti != boilerplate.
Those two code examples are different because that's the tradeoff that Solid made. It allows Solid to track changes in a uniform way even if the data isn't inside a component. Because in Solid components are just a way to organize code, not a unit of rendering (like in React).
And on top of that if you think that React still somehow has unidirectional data flow, it doesn't. Hooks make it anything but unidirectional. And not that different from signals: https://res.cloudinary.com/practicaldev/image/fetch/s--upMC6... But often less predictable.
Dan Abramov replied to those as well. Personally, the purity of the React model with bringing in only local rather than global state in every function is what appeals to me. Even hooks are still local state, if you change the value in useState, you're not going to suddenly have something change elsewhere, where it wasn't explicit where you changed it.
useEffect, useContext, and usSyncExternalStore are no longer about "local only".
And you never use only local state. You advocate for Redux in a different comment which is literally a global state where you are going to have something suddenly change somewhere from the point of view of a component.
You are misunderstanding me. I never said to use only local state with no global state at all. My point is that signals automatically make all state global because you can reference what should be a local value in a component, in another component entirely which is not at all connected to the initial component either in a parent or a child relationship. In other words, you are making a graph, not a tree.
For Redux, at least that's explicit, for signals, it's really not.
Not sure what this has to do with anything; my point was just that the bar is much more accessible, generally speaking, than it was prior to software being a thing. It wasn't some grand thesis about the affordability of internet or larger social problems (housing, poverty, etc.).
Of course it does, the second paragraph in my original response states just that. This doesnt negate the fact that some people are exponentially better at business than others. Its the same in math, chess, basketball, football, writing, and every other human endeavor
> This doesnt negate the fact that some people are exponentially better at business than others. Its the same in math, chess, basketball, football, writing, and every other human endeavor
Citing chess directly contradicts your thesis about "innate talent".
In chess, the Polgar sisters are proof that training is the key and not genetics. The increasing existence of younger and younger chess grandmasters distributed around the world also shows that it's more about training than "innate talent".
Football and basketball do have a "innate talent" component--at the highest levels the competitors are genetic freaks.
However, any human endeavor not relying on pure physicality does not have "innate talent" limitations. "Talent" is almost always correlated to "early training" and "hard work".
I do wonder about the Polgar sisters case. By any measure their parents were also pretty exceptional individuals - just read the Wikipedia page - which is a huge confounding variable. Maybe “being laser focussed about raising a child genius” is a trait that manifests as “being laser focused at getting good at chess” when inherited!
"the Polgar sisters are proof that training is the key and not genetics"
Look, I don't have a dog in this fight but the idea that the Polgars "prove" that training is more important that genetics doesn't make sense. Evidence maybe, "proof" is just a silly assertion.
They were all born at different times and had different experiences and have different genes!
Here on HN folks are always going on about genes with confident assertions but the number of people that understand the difference between "heritability" and "genetics" seems to be very small.
"Football and basketball do have a "innate talent" component--at the highest levels the competitors are genetic freaks."
This is not a thing you have actual evidence for, and there are players at the highest levels of these sports that don't fit the mould of what you would expect it takes to succeed - it is too broad an assertion.
Polgar sisters clearly proves a genetic point if you notice their ancestry?
But I dont want to go individual examples, because individual geniuses possibly exist in every genetic pool. Let’s talk about averages where genetics do matter. On average which groups did/do well in intellectual pursuits. The trend is obvious but unfortunately taboo so we can’t have a reasonable conversation about this, even in this forum at times but if you study I think you’ll find some small sub groups overly represented in intellectual pursuits even when given extremely unfair environmental conditions like abject poverty or literal prosecution and you see this trend happening over and over again that it becomes clear to me that some gene pools are better suited to intellectual pursuits than other gene pools.
If there's a seemingly "free region" that everyone knows about and deflects to, you can be 100% sure that the state knows about it, knows everyone who "deflected" there, and keeps tabs on everyone.
A smart authoritarian government will have these "free" zones as a pressure release valve:
- Most active dissidents jailed
- Active dissidents allowed to flee the country
- Somewhat active ones allowed to "flee the regime to the free-thinking zones far from government control"
It's not a "free" region, just a remote, poor province where the central government is less relevant. As the Chinese say, 山高皇帝远: the mountains are high and the emperor is far away.
If there was a genuine insurgency, as in Xinjiang and Tibet, the central government does get involved and stomps down hard.
天 (and probably meaning heaven where the gods live).
A grounding would be to visit Mount Tai and see the clouds beneath you when the weather conditions are just right. You have the same picture looking out the window of a Boeing 737max8. Anyway the ruler and ruling elites used to perform ceremonies on Mount Tai, poeticly gods living in heaven.
天 looks a bit like the picture postcards of Mount Fuji from various angles.
I think people overestimate how authoritarian China is. Not in the good sense, but in the central government has limitations in what it can pay attention to (large country, lots of local governments, not a lot of police, etc...). Truth is, China can be a very free place at the same time it is restrictive (easy to break laws and not get caught, hard to hand out fliers in public criticizing the government...at least in Beijing).
Let's say you're a teacher with known dissident tendencies. Boom. Suddenly the only place you can get work is one of these remote regions with lax control. Yes there is less government there, and you can even start a book club or something to read and discuss banned literature, and no one will bother you.
But try and get out because you're tired of rural life... and no place in the "mainland" will acept you. Or will only offer you menial jobs and unskilled labor.
This was a very widely and well-used tactic in the USSR. Can't see why China (or any other authoritatian state) wouldn't do the same. Especially China with their current state of surveillance tech.
Your hukou is going to limit where you can get work. So you just can’t move to a remote region and become a teacher there, since it is a government job. But exiling is really rare, it’s much more possible that you are stuck in the backwards rural place where you were born or your parents held hukou.
Because new buildings these days are invariably the same boring gray dull shit that robs any place of its identity?