>> “No budget that runs at a deficit is acceptable”
> Why not?
The household analogy works for some people because it answers a moral question, not an economic one: Why should government be exempt from rules that individuals must follow?
The development of the household budget idea as a way of reasoning about the the federal government's is as old as economics itself. The Greek word for economics is oikonomia, consisting of
- oikos = household
- nomos = management
This analogy broke 90 years ago in the US, when, in the aftermath of the great depression, Keynes argued that governments should do things that households cannot: borrow during recessions, spend when private demand collapses, tolerate deficits until recovery. And that these have a beneficial effect on the economy and its participants because government spending becomes someone else's income, essentially injecting demand into the economy.
During the 1970s, US politicians realized that the household budget analogy was an effective rhetorical tool for arguing for fiscal conservatism. Its effectiveness bore no relation to its reflection of present reality. What it did reflect was a set of values: thrift, responsibility, independence, and skepticism of debt. But most of all, it speaks to a sense of justice - that the rules for me were also the rules for thee. The difference that the government plays by a different set of economic constraints than I do is the fundamental tension that the household analogy attempts to address. This is a moral intuition not an economic intuition. The sentiment still holds power today despite it being a bad intuition pump for economic reasoning.
Steel-manning the choking in sports angle, I could see a case for UFC fights being blocked as they use various chokeholds techniques[1][2][3][4][5][6].
Yes, I think some of these competitive MMA things are illegal here in Sweden.
But when I think sports I think things like soccer, tennis, swimming, wrestling etc.
These things you bring up are very niche, and I don't understand their relevance to whether it's a good idea to use the law to make choking in pornography less visible.
I practiced BJJ for a couple years. I was much more comfortable with chokes than joint locks. There seems to be a lot of misconception around blood chokes which I attribute mostly to movies. You'll see someone grab another person in a rear naked choke and they are unconscious (or dead) for as long as is convenient for the story to continue. Blood chokes come on fast and they go away fast. I've choked two people unconscious in training accidentally. Both recovered in under five seconds and just seemed confused and didn't even realize they had been caught out.
Joints don't have that amount of forgiveness. If you over-apply a joint lock then the joint or bone or ligaments are damaged. Period. Literally no one has ever died in modern combat sports from a choke. No one. Zero. None. But there are plenty of deaths and traumatic injuries from other combat sport actions. The only way to accidentally kill someone with a choke is to hold it for multiple minutes while they are unconscious as was the case for Jordan Neely.
None of this comment has anything to do with choking in pornography.
You can't just multiply out the numbers because it assumes knowledge of the supply and demand curves that aren't available. Namely, we don't have access to the emperical supply and demand curves of any good or service.
Every supply and demand curve we've ever seen is a pedagogical tool for teaching the concept, not for what actually exists in the world. The author mistakes the teaching model as fact invalidating all downstream conclusions.
I haven't tried it and am afk rn but I'd imagine you just define a constexpr function that implements collatz and use that in your contract.
(Edit: if the input is constexpr itself)
Its also quire easy to think about specializing a few templates and doing it that way. If you look up an example of the fib sequence in c++ templates you'll get the general idea.
I feel like I'd have something to learn from seeing the code.
Won't you just run into a constexpr evaluation depth error with a suggestion to set -fconstexpr-depth? I don't see how this is the gotcha it's made out to be.
I'd exepct something like that to happen. Worth reiterating that the whole scenario is for a hypothetical different implementation of contract that would execute comptime, as noted in the parent thread.
If you wanted a c++26 preconditon for collatz tho, here it is.
```cpp
bool collatz(unsigned long long n) {
while (n != 1) n = n % 2 ? 3 * n + 1 : n / 2;
return true;
}
void f(unsigned long long n) pre(collatz(n));
```
That's basically what you'd write if you were doing it with asserts, as the linked article states, just now you add it to the declaration.
Big Black Candle, Big White Candle, Black Body, White Body, Doji, Long-Legged Doji, Dragonfly Doji, Gravestone Doji, Hammer, Hanging Man, Inverted Hammer, Shooting Star, Long Upper Shadow, Long Lower Shadow, Marubozu, Spinning Top, Shaven Head, Shaven Bottom, Bearish Harami, Bullish Harami, Bearish Harami Cross, Bullish Harami Cross, Engulfing Bearish Line, Engulfing Bullish, Bearish 3-Method Formation, Bullish 3-Method Formation, Evening Star, Evening Doji Starv Morning Star, Morning Doji Star, Falling Window, Rising Window, Three black crows, Three White Soldiers, On Neckline, Doji Star, Tweezer Tops, Tweezer Bottoms, Dark Cloud Cover, Piercing Line, Darth Maul, Judas Candle, Island reversal
It's great that people think these are real.
reply