I think maybe starting with Leninism, what youre saying may be true, but not with Marxism. I think this comment explains it a bit well:
So the original Marxist idea would lead to withering-away of government, and thus zero parties, not one-party authoritarianism. But due to all the authoritarian implementations, people think of states like the USSR when they hear/see communism
The problem is these people are voted in by states who comprise of residents who have brain injuries, misogynistic views, extremist ideals, and/or a myriad of other skewed thoughts.
So unfortunately we get stuck with the consequences of other state's resident's decisions
Well I ask these cause authoritarianism seems counterintuitive to the main philosophy around Marxism. Saying "the proletariat should have greater value and power in a business, since they're doing the actual labor", but then rolling over and accepting a dictatorship where the populace has no political say seems nonsensical.
Hence why I suspect the authoritarianism must have come first. So I can't necessarily agree to "communism predisposing itself to authoritarianism" since it doesn't make sense for a True-Marxist society to want to accept that sort of government.
As for how to set up the government in a communist-economy state: probably more of a Republic. People elect multiple representatives, and these representatives meet and decide on policies for the country and how to run it
Every major country that has ever gone down the communist road ended up a dictatorship
While I don't think full-on Marxism is necessary and am in agreement on the democratic socialism, I think the reason for this is really more towards the political end of it than the economic.
If a country practicing a communist economy had a more representative/democratic political system from the start, I'd like to see how the results panned out. And I'd also like to see which came first, the dictatorship, or the communism. The former being first makes more sense than the latter.
Agreed. Functional languages really raised my standard for what a language could be.
Stronger typing. More functional flow. Less dumb errors.
I'll be honest, I thought She-Hulk was alright. Was it Marvel's best work? Not really. I think the ending was pretty... Different? Not good? A cop-out? Unsure.
It kinda feels like they just slapped together something for the sake of slapping together something, for money. If it felt like it was a bit more planned out in terms of story line, flow, and if the ending was an actual ending, then I think it'd be better rated.
Of course, the female-lead movies will have the misogynists that tank the ratings, and that's unfortunately unavoidable. But I think some of She-Hulk's ratings was that people were expecting a fully-fleshed-out season like their other streamables, like Daredevil, The Punisher, Wandavision. Those felt like complete, planned stories, even if meant to be supplemental to the movies. This felt different. In fact, most of the recent episodic stories feel different. Because I think they feel episodic: divided up while also trying to be a story.
I'm not sure if the portayal of She-Hulk is true to her comics. I honestly have only read a small handful of comics, so I go into the movies and shows just taking it in as it's shown.
She-Hulk felt like they tried to slap some laughs, fourth-wall-breaking, and a variety of cameos into a sort of "what whacky adventures will Jen the Hulk Lawyer get into today?", followed by a botched ending to wrap it all up.
Now all of that said, I did enjoy it. Except the ending, if I haven't made that clear enough. It was nice pieces of a story. I have nothing against She-Hulk as a character, or any of the female characters. I think its great to bring a wider variety of people (sex/genders, religions, sexual orientations, etc) into the multiverse. I just think this story was not great, and I hope that botching the story and causing bad ratings as a result wasn't an intentional act in order to say "See, people don't want this Marvel hero."
Haskell for sure has a very sloped learning curve. The functional style, different syntax, a myriad of symbols and pragmas, as well as the tooling around it.
The only reason I was able to pick it up as quick as I did was because I was used to Elm due to my job. Then it was just learning about the IO type (and how to use it), cabal, stack, built-in symbols, and the most common pragmas.
But the symbols part is especially harsh, since symbols only hold meaning if they're universally understood. Sure, the base- language ones are kinda adopted at this point, so they'll stay, but the fact that external modules can also make symbols (sometimes without actually-named counterparts) adds some confusion. Like, would you just know what .: is supposed to mean off the top of your head?
In my opinion, this is usually how I classify things:
Probably a "side effect" of the tactic of luring in people with the first paragraph then asking for you to subscribe. Im sure that the HTML (of the full article) is probably still there, but they're hidden or covered by the "subscribe to read" elements.
I mean it's not great, but at least we did get Hulk in some capacity almost right away in the MCU.
It's unfortunate that all Marvel had their characters licensed out to various film studios (Universal, Sony, 21C Fox), but all that happened before Marvel had the means to produce the films themselves, and I think in hindsight they wouldn't have done so. At least they're seemingly recollecting the film rights, one way or another.
Iirc from back when I worked at Universal Studios 5-ish years ago, the reason we never really got an MCU Hulk movie is because Universal holds/held the rights to the Hulk in film. I think they permitted MCU Marvel to use the Hulk, but he couldn't be the main character of the film/series. So he's been limited to the Avengers, and appearances in things like Thor Ragnarok, She-Hulk (technically not The Hulk), etc. I think there was one additional stipulation, and that it was they couldn't retcon Universal's The Incredible Hulk's story. Hence your point where Ruffalo's Bruce Banner references events done in the Norton film.
Additional sidenote, Universal own/owned the rights to comic representation of the Marvel characters (unsure if it was all or just some) for theme park attractions, or something like that (it's been a while, exact details hazy). So when Disney acquired Marvel, I think Disney is/was limited to the Disney+Marvel movie versions of those until the usage contract expires for Universal (if it hasn't already).
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on these details. I tried to use present/past tenses because I don't know if anything still applies or not.
Although, i would agree with it not necessarily being "friendly", since its a drastically different syntax than many beginners would be used to, the brackets and parenthesis here are not what you think they are.
Unison is a language in the style of Haskell, F#, Purescript, Elm, etc. So that first line is actually type annotations.
In Haskell, this would just be
helloWorld :: IO (), meaning a function named "helloWorld" with no arguments and produces what is essentally a potentially-unsafe IO action with a Void return (the empty parenthesis () ).Here in Unison they call the bracket part "abilities" or something. Its saying the same thing as Haskell, but being more explicit in saying it can raise an exception.