Pretty much every language has a form of resumable exception known as a "function call". It's hard for me to understand why no one in the algebraic effects/effect handlers community has noticed this yet.
This is the difference between functions and effect handlers, to my understanding:
Functions map inputs to outputs, with a type signature that looks like A -> B. Functions may be composed, so if you have f: A -> B and g: B -> C, you have gf: A -> C. Function composition corresponds with how "ordinary" programming is done by nesting expressions, like g(f(x)).
Sometimes, the function returns something like Option<B> or Future<B>. "Ordinary" function composition would expect the subsequent function's input type to be Future<B>, but frequently you need that input to have type B. Therefore, optionals or futures require "Kleisli composition," where given f: A -> Future<B> and g: B -> Future<C>, you have gf: A -> Future<C>. Kleisli composition corresponds with "monadic" programming, with "callback hell" or some syntactic sugar for it, like:
let y = await f(x);
g(y)
Effect handlers allow you to express the latter, "monadic" code, in the former, "direct style" of ordinary function calls.
The main European football association also found them guilty recently of anti-Arab racist chants and fined, gave them a "suspended one-match away fan ban":
> > when no other sets of fans are given the same treatment
> This treatment is often doled out to clubs' fans. Even in Tel Aviv.
Sorry, what treatment are you talking about exactly? Your parent seems to be referring to the treatment of being "blocked from attending by the police/council". Is that what you mean is often doled out to clubs/fans?
Yes, that's the precise type of treatment I'm talking about: prevented from attending a football game due to security concerns or penalty for poor behavior.
It happens often enough in European football. Search "away fans ban uefa -maccabi" online. You can also look at official UEFA sites, but they often list partial bans (e.g., ban from a particular section of the stadium) in a way that I can't distinguish from complete bans.
According to the UEFA website you linked it looks like BSC Young Boys were the only other club to face a ban on Europa League away fans in 2025. Maccabi Tel Aviv doesn't appear there, of course, since despite UEFA having rules and punishments against fan violence, they didn't consider it appropriate to punish Maccabi. So I wonder how frequently a team is forbidden from taking away fans by the local police, despite not being sanctioned by UEFA.
The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore. Admittedly, because of violence on the morning of the game, not because of concerns well in advance, but I think it's quite reasonable to say that such a prohibition is not some kind of outrageous outlier.
My general point is, if you think the surface level details of this case are indication of some outrageous singling out of Maccabi fans, then I think that's mostly due to ignorance (in the non-derogatory sense of lack of familiarity).
If you want to debate the details, that's a fine thing to do, and I'm aware of lots of those details too and would still generally find it quite plausible to desire an away fans ban for Maccabi in that case, but that's not the point I'm trying to make on HN right now.
> The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore
I think you mean the match against Hapoel Tel Aviv, which happened before this furore. The Tel Aviv police naturally know and expect that there is often unrest at a derby match, let alone a derby match between teams who share a stadium. But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other? And even if there was, why not cancel the match or play it behind closed doors? Why punish Maccabi specifically?
My recollection is the Tel Aviv derby took place after this Aston Villa ban was announced or raised publicly as a possibility (my meaning of "the furore"), but before the eventual match (another valid definition). Regardless, the sequence of these events is immaterial.
As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match! The report is a poor document, but it contains some valid reasoning, despite the outrageous AI hallucination and some legal linguistics errors (mistakenly saying "communities" themselves were targeted, instead of individuals from said communities).
Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns? https://archive.is/20251218110350/https://www.nytimes.com/at...
> As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match!
A match that happened 12 months prior? Maccabi had played several away matches around Europe in that intervening period. Why should it have been a Birmingham team that saw fit to ban them?
> Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns?
It's not implausible! But bans of all away fans happens rarely.
> But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other?
Emphasis mine, but you said both in a connected statement, so I don't see the point in disputing anything about my quotation.
Edit: I see now have you've removed the dispute of my quotation as being inaccurate where you argued you said "particular relation" and not "particular reason" -- no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.
As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because there is a resident population in Birmingham that would be a likely target of racial/religious abuse by Maccabi fans, i.e., Muslim people, or even just "Arab" appearing people, or people showing Palestine solidarity. Amsterdam and Birmingham are similar in this regard (I lived in Amsterdam for years), in ways other cities may not be. I'm not clued into Stuttgart or the cities hosting other games, so I can't say if populations there are similar or not. Expecting a uniform approach from all cities would be ludicrous -- why mandate ignoring particularities?
I don't think this is a form of intolerance towards Maccabi fans, because the logic is identical to that of the Tel Aviv derby prohibition -- it's about preventing reasonably predictable confrontations that exceed some tolerance level.
> Edit: I see you removed disputing my quotation as being inaccurate, no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.
Yes, the mistake was entirely mine.
> As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because ...
Fine, that's a perfectly valid reason in itself, but the West Midlands police did keep quiet about that being the basis for the ban, only saying so (in far less detail than you) after the match had taken place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx3d5enx0xo, which in itself seems suspicious.
If your point is "hooliganism happens and is treated on a case-by-case basis, in some circumstances warranting bans" then my response would be to agree, though I still hold that such hooliganism is rare. This isn't the 1980s any more. Any further dispute is about the facts of the particular case, and what I've seen from the Commons committee which questioned the West Midlands police chief doesn't fill me with confidence that your interpretation is the correct one.
The background level of hooliganism is AFAIK a lot lower now than in the 80s/90s when I casually recall it being commonplace and less under control, yes, but that doesn't mean that Maccabi deserve to be treated as if they themselves rarely act as hooligans or racists, etc.
I have read quite a lot on the topic of what transpired in Amsterdam, what generally transpires at Maccabi games in Israel (in terms of genocidal chants, calling Israeli "left wing" club supporters "the whores of Arabs", etc., because they are in my view less racist against Palestinians or "Israeli Arabs"), the level of analysis done by the Birmingham police (a poor document, but to me there is clearly a reasonable argument in there, struggling to be expressed, but mired in unforced errors), etc. I think the standard of discourse by UK parliamentary commissions and debate in parliament, etc., has been very low, and not a sufficient basis to understand the relevant facts, even for a casual overview, never mind for detailed insight.
However, none of that is part of my original point, which is only to say, that banning away fans from a club like Maccabi is not notable, and on the surface level, anyone arguing that it smacks of discrimination is either ignorant or disingenuous. If one admits that there was plausible justification to prohibit Maccabi away fans, but in the particulars it was not justified, then fine, I disagree, but I don't wish to pursue the argument on HN.
For example, at any duel between Ajax and Feyenoord the away fans have been banned - since 2009. The Den Haag municipality banned away fans at ADO Den Haag - Ajax games for over 10 years. NAC - Willen II didn't allow away fans during the 2022 season. Fans misbehaved badly enough during N.E.C. - Vitesse games that they were threatened with a 10-year ban on away fans. Amsterdam banned the Italian fans at Ajax - SS Lazio in 2024, due to repeated antisemitism and racism. Lille didn't allow Ajax fans during their game last January. In 2023 the Amsterdam police seriously considered banning all away fans during all high-risk European games.
And that's just the first few results of a trivial search for a single country. I could probably find a hundred more without much effort.
He was imprisoned in Iran, then went to Turkey and from there to Iraq iirc, but it is long ago, so I suspect the GP meant after he was arrested by the Shah.
When Trump talks about rules, laws, and order it’s in the “L'État, c'est moi” (the state is me) sense. I.e. following the law means following his whims.
I've begun to call it (in my own head) "pessimissivism", a fatal combination of being pessimistic and dismissive. It can't be unique to HN, but I find it particularly jarring that it has taken root here, given the optimistic and open-minded origins of this forum.
We are talking about about billionaires gambling with company issued casino chips while messing up the actual brick and mortar economy. Being open-minded and optimistic about this activity brought us such wonderful events as 2008.
Value investing a la Buffett and Munger is certainly not how we got 2008. Quite the opposite. In fact they were some of the most prominent individuals before 2008 outspoken about the risks of the derivatives that led to 2008, calling them "financial weapons of mass destruction".
Oh I see, you meant Elon and Thiel prevent the shares they control from being shorted? I originally thought you meant they prevent any TSLA shares from being shorted.
reply