Got anything to back that up? Businesses managed to thrive before when taxes were considerably higher. How do you account for the Gilded Age? How were those monopolies different than today and how did taxes and bureaucracy exacerbate issues then? Because there are many parallels between them and now.
Cept the part about Amazon not letting you sell your goods cheaper elsewhere. That keeps the price inflated and is anti-competitive since it squashes competition from other marketplaces, not because their platform is better, mind you, but because they have all the power.
Amazon only controls their market. You play by their rules if you sell with them, and that is totally valid. You can sell your product for any price you want so long as you don't use Amazon or don't undercut them if you choose to use them.
That is totally valid. Amazon provides the eyes; they don't want to provide a service for free. Think of all the people that go to best buy to feel a product and then buy it online. Amazon doesn't want that to happen to them.
That's the point. They are by far the largest player in the game, and can ( and do) use their size to squash competition. You don't have to use their marketplace but as a small business you don't have many options that can compete.
Hell, they're even extremely anti-competitive with their employees. Their NDAs are very restrictive and have threatened non-senior employees with them, even ones that they let go.
When I was trying to learn monads no one ever gave me an example of mapping a list-returning function to a list. Everyone went on about 'effects', monad laws, etc. For some of us it's best to work backwards from something concrete and then show why the laws are important.
I love how simple most things are in FP compared to OO. I also hate how poorly FP concepts are explained.
I'm not saying you're wrong about people learning terminology. However, you definitely get more strange looks from FP terms than OO terms. Class, interface and object are common terms. When I mention a word like 'monad', 'monoid', 'magma', or 'functor' people look at me like I'm nuts. It's not logical. A new word is a new word. It's just FP words sound almost alien and trigger extra confusion in people.
This is probably the biggest problem with FP, and I love FP, and use fp-ts which is marred in category theory. It took me a while to understand concepts that are really quite simple but explained very academically.
I prefer functional. Procedural is not restrained enough and allows for mutable global state. This can go off the rails when multiple people are in the code.
Functional stresses composition so functions should stay small, and ADTs allow for all effects (errors!) to be represented. Strong typing helps reduce the number of tests I need to write, as well.
I think ADTs and effects system are orthogonal though. A “print” has an effect but I don’t know of languages where failure of that is propagated (for example in Rust, println doesn’t evaluate to Result).
You get JSONB with postgres, which, to me, is a significant difference. This means you can indexing by key/value, access keys directly, without parsing the whole json string, etc.
For my use case, JSONB support completely killed most NoSQL solutions.
Sorry, I should have said JSONB. Do you still consider a table with a single JSONB column SQL or NoSQL? Sure, it may be contained within a RDBMS but you are treating it more like a document store than a relationship database.
Common in the States too. I'm from Eastern MA and work in Boston. If I order a "vodka, soda" it sounds normal, but if I say "vodka AND soda" then "vodka" becomes "vodkar". My accent is a pretty standard Eastern New England accent.
