Jokes aside, you create a custom Dockerfile and copy a statically compiled shell binary.

Can confirm. I have a Windows VM just because I have to test this. It is not a good feedback loop.

I’m not loosely coupled at all, sir, I am married!

Boy do I have bad news for you https://threatpost.com/def-con-2018-critical-bug-opens-millions-of-hp-officejet-printers-to-attack/134972/

Gtfoh all I hear is how “Israel has a right to defend itself” in defense of every war crime charge.

You need to get over the bloat of virtual environments. It’s the same as node_modules and it’s completely necessary if you want more than a single python project to live on your machine.

I personally use poetry as my dependency manager and build tool. It’s not perfect but it’s a lot better than pipenv or just rawdogging pip like a maniac. uv is the new hotness, but I haven’t tried it so can’t vouch. People seem to like it though.

JavaScript is also an interpreted language with tons of build tools. The reason to have one for python is mainly about packaging and code distribution, so same as JavaScript. If you want to distribute a program you probably don’t want to just point people to a GitHub repo, and if you want to publish a package on pypi it needs to be bundled correctly.

For ecosystem there isn’t much I can do for you, it completely depends on what you’ll be working on. Baseline you want pydantic for parsing objects, assuming some APIs will be involved. You want black for code formatting, flake8 for linting, pytest for testing. If you’re gonna write your own APIs you can’t go wrong with fastapi, which works great with pydantic. For nice console stuff there’s click for building cli apps and rich and textual for console output and live console apps respectively.

People are actively trying to replace flake8 and black with feature compatible stuff written in rust but again I haven’t tried those so can’t vouch.

Coming from react you’re gonna need to pretty quickly switch gears to thinking more object oriented. You’re gonna be annoyed at how you can’t just quickly declare a deeply nested interface, that’s just how it is. The biggest change other than object oriented thinking will probably be decorators. Typescript had them experimentally and only for classes, python has them for classes and functions natively. They’re a bit tricky to wrap your mind around when you want to write your own, but not too bad. A lot of Google hits will be outdated on this front. Google specifically “decorators ParamSpec” to see how to make them properly.

Good luck in your new job, you’ll be grand!

Definitely those used to be pain points, but they do exist now so type erasure after decorator application isn’t a problem anymore, which used to be another huge one for me.

The discussion around how unpopular it was in other languages seems like such an obvious side track to me. Typing in general went out of fashion and then made a comeback when it was opt-in, why wouldn’t the same apply to exceptions? Of course I’m not wanting warnings in every func call because of a potential MemoryCorruptionError, but if a library has some set of known exceptions as a de facto part of its interface then that’s currently completely unknown to me and my static type checker.

One kinda bad example is playwright. Almost all playwright functions have the chance to raise a TimeoutError, but even if you know this you’ll probably shoot yourself in the foot at least once because it’s not the built-in TimeoutError, oh no, it’s a custom implementation from the library. If you try to simply try...except TimeoutError:, the exception will blow right by you and crash your script, you’ve got to import the correct TimeoutError. If it was properly typed then pyright would be able to warn you that you still need to catch the other kind of TimeoutError. It’s a bad example because like I said almost all playwright functions can raise this error so you’d get a lot of warnings, but it also demonstrates well the hidden interface problem we have right now, and it’s the most recent one that screwed me, so it’s the one I remember off the top of my head.

Yeah, they’re useful when developing, which is why it’s so frustrating when libraries don’t implement types. I’m developing and I’m trying to use a tool that supposedly fits a use case I have, but the tool didn’t come with instructions so it’s practically useless to me. I could open the tool up and look at its guts to figure it out but are you kidding me no, I’m not going back to the stone age for your tool.

All documentation is optional and ignored at runtime, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. If your library doesn’t have type hints I’m just not gonna use it, I don’t have the time to figure out what you accept or return.

My biggest pet peeve is the complete inability to annotate a set of known exceptions that a function raises in a machine readable way. The discussion about it is quite heated.

I code both typescript and python professionally, and python is almost as much of a mess, just a different kind of mess. The package manager ecosystem is all over the place, nobody is agreeing on a build system, and the type system is still unable to represent fairly simple concepts when it comes to function typing. Also tons of libraries just ignore types altogether. I love it, but as a competitor to JavaScript in the messiness department it’s not a good horse.

I’m sorry if I misinterpreted the quote about places with legal gun owners having less illegal gun owners. How else should I have interpreted it?

You pulled a statistic, please provide a source for it.

Yes, a person entering an empty room with a gun on the table is absolutely statistically in danger of mishandling the gun and harming themselves. The actual meta study referenced here is behind a paywall but people do not behave well when put in a room alone with a dangerous thing. As far as I can tell no one has replicated the experiment with an actual gun, though I’d love to see that. Now I don’t want to strawman too much here but you might be tempted to say that the problem isn’t the gun but the combination of human stupidity and guns. That’s generally what makes dangerous things dangerous, and isn’t the gotcha people on the gun side often think it is. In a world with only guns and no humans there’s no gun violence, hooray.

I’ll let you have the final word here if you wish, I’m pretty done with this discussion. I’ll just reiterate one last time that this is all you trying to convince me that I should not be feeling more safe in a place that doesn’t allow guns and I think that’s pretty fucked.

Ok now I know you’re just full of shit and can be safely ignored, thanks.

Guns also mostly end up harming the owner, but with a side effect of death, unlike the stun gun. Immediate Google results shows stun guns to be about 90% effective, which I’ll take over your anecdote.

It’s a false equivalence in this context which you keep ignoring. The question is about a place that explicitly doesn’t allow guns. Again, to make the equivalence work you have to compare me walking on a road that doesn’t allow cars to me walking on one that does, and obviously I feel safer on the one that doesn’t, even if someone can break the rules and bring a car.

I’ve been punched before, complete blind violence. The difference is that being punched didn’t kill me. The fear of getting shot in America is not irrational. Again refer to the page full of statistics in my previous comment.

None of what you just said is true. Starting here

Just to be clear, walking into a room that has a gun in it doesn’t magically make you more likely to get shot.

That’s nonsense, obviously there’s an increased probability with strict causation between being around guns and getting shot.

If you’re in a place where legal gun owners are, and where illegal gun owners are unlikely to be (or at least unlikely to cause problems in)

You seem to be pretending that “good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns”. I invite you to provide any source that backs this up. This is an American myth, and from outside it’s obvious that the presence of “good guys” with guns just make the criminal elements more likely to arm themselves. It also is increasingly obvious that a very large portion of the self proclaimed good guys are in fact also bad people just itching for an excuse.

Ok, I don’t agree, it should be up to and including the amount of force necessary to incapacitate whoever is threatening your life. Stun gun and handcuffs yes, handgun no.

Btw the way you drew a false comparison between my argument and road safety is called false equivalence and is an informal fallacy, while we’re discussing each other’s debating techniques rather than addressing the points made.

You’ve done your division twice there, it seems. The ~45000 is the number after you take away the suicides.. So pretty much 1/2000, so I guess I was pretty close.

Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that? As for your comparison to vehicular deaths, let’s remember the context here. The question is whether or not I feel safer in a place that doesn’t allow guns or one that does. So you should really be asking if I think it’s better to walk on the sidewalk or in the road shared with cars. Of course I might still get hit by a car on the sidewalk, but where would you feel safer?

Don’t know why you were down dooted, that’s absolutely true and exactly how I feel, and how everyone I’ve talked to about copilot feels.