Let's say I have a religion that, as part of practicing it, restricts my diet.
If I try to make you - a non-practitioner - eat that diet, then your reply makes sense. It's a personal matter; I don't get to force it on you or anyone else.
But if you try to remove the option of me being able to get food that fits my diet out in public? Don't try to justify that by saying "religion is a personal matter". That's an absurd rationale.
I had a friend who was a Christian evangelist to cult members. He said that they would be a cult member as long as they wanted to be a cult member. The only way was to move them to the place where they didn't want to be in the cult anymore.
The way he did it was to preach their cult's doctrine to them. "OK, according to your church's teaching, here's the requirements for you to be saved. How are you doing? Are you going to make it? How much harder are you going to have to work in order to make it? Will even working harder be enough to get you there?" When the weight of what their belief system actually demanded of them sunk in, some of them didn't want to be in the cult anymore.
Seven million people showed up for No Kings. And your metric is how long it grabbed media attention? Seven million people who cared enough to actually physically show up says that they're getting their message out just fine, and it's resonating with people, no matter how long the media spends on it.
If I have $300K on my mortgage and a monthly payment of $2000, and I pay an extra $100K, that 100K reduces the principal of the mortgage by $100K, and so the mortgage will run for several years less than it would have. But my monthly payment is still $2000 for the years I have left on it.
There are other ways to structure it - you can pay ahead, paying next month's payment this month so that you don't have to pay anything next month if you don't want to. Can you pay $100K so that you don't have to pay the next 50 months' payments? I don't know, but probably. You have to be clear with them what you are trying to do, though.
But that last 10% of checking may be really hard to encode in types. It may be especially hard to do so in the language that you want to use for other reasons.
If I have a huge function, and I can peel parts off into sensible well-encapsulated sub-functions, and I name them well, then my ability to comprehend the whole goes up.
If I do that, future me will thank me, because I will almost inevitably be back to that function at some point.
But for this to work, the sub-functions have to really do what they say, and not do anything more. I have to be able to trust that I can understand them by just their name and arguments.
reply