>[In Ruby] There is good support for functional programming with first-class functions, anonymous functions, and closures.
This seems like a blatantly false claim to me since as a Python programmer forced to use Ruby for Sketchup, I have been frustrated by the lack of first-class functions in Ruby.
I’m interested to learn what “first-class functions” means to you. Ruby has both `Proc` and `Method` which would appear to qualify. Is your frustration that you can’t `def foo … end` and then use bare `foo` to refer to it as a value (vs invoking it)?
Right, I see, because you have to say `method(:foo)` or `-> { foo }` or whatever. To me this is an acceptable syntactic trade-off in exchange for being able to invoke the method with bare `foo` (i.e. variable reads and method calls look the same) but I can see from other comments here that some people dislike that ability anyway. Vive la différence!
My experience has been very positive. I recently noticed that Firefox had become slightly slow to recover my session at start-up. I investigated and found I had over 1800 tabs open. With a few hundred tabs open start-up is amazingly fast. I never even think about performance otherwise because it has ceased to be an issue.
I'll take a wild guess that he is alleging that Eric Holder's failure to prosecute any of the CEOs of the financial institutions that played a critical role in the financial crisis (by, e.g., making loans to people without incomes, packaging the loans into mortgage backed securities, and passing the resulting time bombs off to other parties) was appreciated by his former and future colleagues at Covington and Burling and their clients in the finance industry. That Eric Holder was very aware of that appreciation and anticipated that he would be rewarded for it.
When party A sells party B a crappy product with overinflated promises, the result is a civil suit, not a DOJ criminal prosecution. In any event, what does Equifax have to do with that? Was Equifax rating mortgages or something? Is it a bank?
When the creation and representation of crappy products entails fraud or other crimes the result would actually include criminal prosecutions by the DOJ (in a world where the DOJ weren't captured by party A's industry). Tying the two scandals together is the influence of the finance industry on regulation and enforcement through the revolving door, in both cases to the same law firm representing financial institutions.
Fraud can be either civil or criminal, depending on the circumstances. Where sophisticated parties are on both sides of the transaction, and the allegations of fraud boil down to complex questions regarding representations about the product, it's a civil matter, not a criminal matter. The fact that the DOJ correctly interpreted the law instead of trying to satisfy peoples' bloodlust isn't a "scandal."
I really look forward to using this. It would be a great help to mobile users if uneeded options, e.g., 'header', could be made to disappear to save screen real estate.
> If the insurance is correctly priced then the banks that don't pass the cost of risk on to customers should be able to compete nicely against the ones that try to.
This theory breaks down if you distinguish between banker and bank as per the article.
In the short term, the crooked banker with insurance can out-compete the honest uninsured banker by making high risk loans, not caring if the loans are paid back. In the short term the crooked banker can accumulate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and happily retire when in the long term the loans fail and the bank goes bankrupt.
The honest banker has to explain to his share holders etc. why crooked banker's bank is growing so much faster than his bank. His borrowers have to compete for houses against borrowers from crooked bank who can borrow more and therefor pay more for houses. His "under-performing" bank may become an acquisition target of crooked bank.
The requisites for this dynamic are the absence of fear of criminal prosecution and perverse incentives via excessive CEO compensation.
Where's the insurance company in all this? They aren't going to sell a risky crooked banker a blanket policy that covers being crooked for nothing, they are either not going to sell a policy at all or are going to charge crazy premiums for it.
Insurance isn't some magic thing that you just go get, it has a price set by well informed underwriters.
Eg., AIG. The "magic" is that insurers can also be crooked, have CEOs with perverse incentives and effective immunity from prosecution, and be favored with bailouts.
>To show what we want, we must prove the stronger condition that F(n)φ - F(n+1) → 0.
Noting that {F(n+1)/F(n)} is the sequence of convergents of the continued fraction expansion of φ, your stronger condition follows from Theorem 5 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction .
