> everyone but the biggest players throwing out a lot of bathwater with very little baby by simply not accepting Danish users (if required).
The biggest players in social media are precisely the ones that this law is targeting.
No one in charge of implementing this law is going to care whether some Mastodon server implements a special auth solution for Danish users or not, they are going to care that Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, etc. do so.
> No one in charge of implementing this law is going to care whether some Mastodon server implements a special auth solution for Danish users or not, they are going to care that Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, etc. do so.
And if that little Mastodon server ends up hosting some content that is embarrassing or offensive to the Danish authorities, laws like this will surely not be used to retaliate...
Arbitrarily and selectively enforced laws seem like an obviously bad thing to me. If the government can nail me for anything, even if they practically don't, I'll be very wary of offending or embarrassing the government.
> How does programming with Clojure targeting multiple platforms (JVM, JS, CLR, LLVM, ...) work?
Each variant has its own file extension, e.g. .clj for JVM and .cljs for JS.
In case you're writing code that needs to work on multiple platforms, you put it in a .cljc file. Any of the code in these files that still needs to be different due to the platform choice is differentiated inline using a reader macro, which results in the different platform compilers getting a (slightly) different abstract syntax tree, so it is not too dissimilar from writing cross-platform code in other languages (just more convenient due to the Lisp style).
I genuinely find that interesting to hear. what about the 30 examples felt different to say the frontpage? (assuming it did)
On a meta level i was suuuuper conscious of writing every word of this post/comments myself, as my prior is that HN's community is very intollerant of and highly sensitive to low effort content, whether via AI or not. This is despite using AI tools for lots of other parts of work (drafting, coding, summarising, brainstorming etc).
Do you think HN has become more accepting of AI slop, the slop is becoming harder to detect, or isnt as discerning as i assume?
Depends. English first language countries remain mostly monolingual. But the rest divides into:
- educated people are expected to learn English in school and end up consuming English media anyway (where you'd expect >50% multilingual, but not everyone)
- country has many official languages (many people are multilingual, but not necessarily in English; e.g. India, Indonesia, possibly China)
- country has literacy problems (not so many left now, maybe in sub-Saharan Africa)
- proud monoglots of a language that isn't English: Japan, France (but even here a lot of people consume English media anyway)
Belgium has 3 languages but my guess would be that each region speaks English better. The French, pardon, Walloniers scarcely speak Dutch and while the Flemish area speaks better French it's usually not great (unsure whether most people would qualify as fluent). Afaik Flanders has mandatory French in school but Wallonia doesn't need to take Dutch, even though 60% of the population is Dutch-speaking. The German-speaking region is mostly forgotten about and they either integrate with the French-speaking part or work in Germany with Belgium as a cheap place to live
The Netherlands has Papiamento as the native language of most people in a part of the country. They're overseas but they vote for the same government and live by the same law. I literally didn't know this until a few years ago (I'm 30). I assume they don't want independence due to things like getting defence and other benefits from a much larger economy (and we're right to feel the need to pay such repairs) but man, this feels really 1800s slave trade levels of wrong. Not a soul speaks Papiamento in the european Netherlands, it's not even an option in school — let alone compulsory!
In Luxembourg it's hit or miss whether someone speaks the national language (Luxembourgish), French (an administrative language), or German (another administrative language). Many will speak at least two, but many also only one (French in particular)
Very eurocentric perhaps but that's my experience with countries that have more than one official language: nearly nobody bothers learning the other if there is no direct necessity
Maybe you can argue why it's not most countries? It seems obvious to me that it is, but I also come from a country where everyone is bilingual.
Many former European colonies are mostly bilingual, e.g. Africa is highly multilingual out of necessity. Much of Europe itself is also mostly bilingual. If you want to communicate outside your own little region and your native language isn't a lingua franca, you need to be bilingual in this world.
The main holdouts when it comes to bilingualism are former imperial powers who managed to both kill domestic language diversity (e.g. France, UK, Russia) while also spreading their national language as a lingua Franca. Another group of holdouts are settler colonies such as the US, which didn't have a dominant native population after the arrival of Europeans.
But even if e.g. Russia itself isn't super bilingual, the rest of the former Soviet Union certainly is, since that is just the reality if you live in a small and/or formerly colonised country.
Contribute more data points of your own then, or even just one. Maybe eventually we'll get to know whether it's most or not rather than dismissing someone who's helping
I believe the more damning thing is, there are more multilingual english speakers than monoglots, merely by virtue of ESL being more common than Native English
Sure, but disability programs are different from what most people think of when they think of retirement. Forcing the majority of people to work until 70 means they burn through most of their healthy years.
On the other hand, people in Denmark work on average 410 fewer hours per year versus the US. In terms of total hours, working from 22 to 70 in Denmark is the equivalent of working from 22 to 59 in the US, or from 22 to 52 in Mexico.
It's different in every country. In Denmark it is a mix: everyone receives a state pension (the Nordic model of universal welfare), but almost everyone also has a private pension account that they out money into.
Full-time in Denmark is 37 hours/week and most people have around 6 weeks of vacation/year (the legal minimum is 5). Some people will be working part-time, bringing the total hours worked down, so the numbers make sense to me.
In the United States, full-time hours are in a range.
Part-time workers are often capped at 29 hours per week, due to tax considerations, such as the Affordable Care Act and other benefits. 30 hours is where the "full-time" label is applied there.
A wage-earning (non-exempt) worker must be paid overtime when they exceed full-time, which is typically a 40-hour maximum. Overtime pay may be "time and a half" or "double time" in certain circumstances.
Dolly Parton's feminist anthem "9 to 5" always mystified me: that's already 40 hours! Don't you stop to eat lunch? But that is the standard idiom for a "normal [office] job" in the States. Sometimes we refer to "banker's hours" which has the negative connotation that the worker never ever works outside that schedule.
In the UK You don't get paid for lunch which is why real white collar hours worked are more like eight to six or a lot longer.
And typically you get to work through your unpaid lunch, while your contract says 37.5 hours and 'any other time necessary to complete your work'. At least that's been my experience for the last forty years or so.
> Dolly Parton's feminist anthem "9 to 5" always mystified me: that's already 40 hours! Don't you stop to eat lunch? But that is the standard idiom for a "normal [office] job" in the States.
I have seen it go one of several ways.
- Technically count the person as 35 hours per week, giving a 1-hour lunch break. (Or 37.5, with a half-hour unpaid lunch break)
- Add an extra half hour to the day, e.g. have the employee work 8:30-5 or 9-5:30.
- Salaried employees aren't explicitly punching in and out of the clock each day, so there's nothing stopping them from working 8-6 or even longer hours. They don't get overtime, but at the same time the company doesn't care what hours they work as long as they get their work done.
"Banker's Hours" used to mean roughly 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM because most retail branches were only open on weekdays during those hours. This was long before online banking or even ATMs.
Right. I thought about part-timers or people working reduced schedules bringing the average (mean) down; I just wasn't sure if I was missing something systemic or not.
It might be more interesting to discuss the median hours worked (or any of a number of other percentiles), but it's not obvious those figures are public.
In particular, counting unemployed labor force participants feels wrong, even if you're counting how many hours a week they're spending on job seeking activities (applying to jobs, prepping resumes, interviewing, etc). I know I would burn out if I spent even 5+ hours a day doing just that, 5 days a week, even if I didn't have a full-time job.
There's also a pernicious thing that certain companies do (I'm thinking retail) where they just won't schedule you for enough hours to qualify you as full-time, since if they exceed that threshold, then (gasp) they have to pay benefits like health insurance. I also would prefer not to count that in the discussion of "how much does a typical employee work?"
On the flip side, I'm also less interested in considering the workaholic lawyers and consultants who are putting in 60-80 hours a week (or more!). There are far fewer of them, but they still skew the numbers.
From my perspective, the stereotypical US workweek is and has been 9 to 5 (whether you count that as 35 or 40 hours after accounting for lunch) for the past 50+ years. We certainly fall behind when it comes to vacation, since we still have no legally mandated minimum (I think 2-4 weeks is typical; anything higher is good but not unheard of).
> It might be more interesting to discuss the median hours worked (or any of a number of other percentiles), but it's not obvious those figures are public.
In particular, it looks like as mentioned, most employees in Denmark fall in the 35-39h bucket (nearly 4x the size of the next biggest bucket, 40+ hours). Meanwhile, if you look at the US, the 40+ bucket is more than 10x the size of any other. But it's not exactly a US vs Scandinavia situation -- Sweden has just under 70% of its workforce also working 40+ hour weeks, higher than the UK or Germany.
The biggest players in social media are precisely the ones that this law is targeting.
No one in charge of implementing this law is going to care whether some Mastodon server implements a special auth solution for Danish users or not, they are going to care that Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, etc. do so.
reply