Youtube comments of Edward Cullen (@edwardcullen1739).
-
1900
-
886
-
513
-
465
-
453
-
428
-
411
-
397
-
7:50 THAT'S THE POINT!!!
The way Major versions work and the way it imposes on library maintainers is a feature, not a bug!
If you are providing a library and constantly changing your API/ABI, you are forcing your downstream users to constantly make changes.
Because of the requirements of SemVer, it forces maintainers to think about the changes they're making.
* "Does this bug fix justify a Major bump? Can we fix it another way that won't break things?"
* "This new feature requires major changes and will break all clients, should we release as-is, or should we include other breaking changes, so that users only need to adapt once?"
* "This new feature requires major changes, is there a way we can introduce it transitionally?"
For example, to handle the latter, people begin introducing the new APIs, before removing the old ones. And they do this, because they want to be able to give people the time to transition.
The whole point of 0-version is that it is to signal pre-release, unstable API/ABI, that is subject to change. The implication being that the dev will get their shit together and stabilise the API/ABI at some point and release a 1.0. And I use this language knowingly and deliberately - it may be a fun project for you, but it could mean Real Work for someone downstream; if you're releasing something for others to use, you have a responsibility to them whether you like it or not and constantly releasing breaking changes is not a responsible way to do things.
I forget where, but someone already implemented epochs (RPM?) designated using a colon, e.g. 0:1.2.3, 1:0.4.2
And Tom Preston-Werner did not "invent" semantic versioning, he merely codified it - this is the way Linux packages were typically handled for a decade or more before and is intimately tied to the way Linux shared libraries function, w.r.t. the linker.
363
-
317
-
266
-
229
-
207
-
180
-
170
-
149
-
133
-
133
-
129
-
117
-
113
-
111
-
101
-
97
-
93
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
88
-
87
-
86
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
80
-
76
-
74
-
74
-
72
-
70
-
69
-
66
-
64
-
59
-
58
-
54
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
36
-
36
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Hi John,
I was recently diagnosed with Autism - literally last week!
Knowing this and looking at my family, it's pretty obvious that BOTH of my parents are neuro-divergent. They were both born in the years immediately following WW2.
I'm still at early stages in my understanding, but I want to point to a couple of things:
1. My first interactions with the NHS were when I was 13/14 and my dad even asked a chold psychiatrist, directly, if I was autistic and he was dismissed almost out-of-hand. I am now 44.
Awareness is dramatically different, as well as the understanding of the genetic component. I'm 'clearly' the most 'different' in my family, but I'm sure all my siblings are on the spectrum.
2. Schooling and the way children are brought-up has changed radically and just from my own experience, I can see how these changes could be extremely detrimental to people at the boundaries - ND people who, otherwise may not have struggled, would struggle in the newer, less rigid, environment.
I really struggle when the rules are unclear. When the rules are clear and rigid, it's easier for me in many ways - so, 1950s schooling or a few years in the army, might have made all the difference, in a good way! (Notwithstanding my proclivity to call-out rules I don't understand/think are stupid... and that this is entirely my own personal conjecture, though, not without knowing some people who are probably ND and ex-forces.)
Please don't misunderstand this as a 'cry for the past', it's not; no more than a 'prospective avenue of investigation'.
3. Look at the people who change the world - Elon Musk is the most obvious example. He's the absolute poster pin-up of Successful Neuro-divergeance.
I have a strong belief that ADHD/ASD are actually population-level, adaptive differences that have been instrumental to our success as a species.
On this, if we look back at the 'eccentrics' of the past - the creatives with odd behaviours, who tended to drink to ease their anxiety and 'unlock their creativity' - I'm confident many, if not most, would be diagnosed as ND.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump himself were ND! 😂 (Listening to him talking about concrete on Joe Rogan really pricked-up my ears and got me thinking!)
I suspect that ADHD/ASD has a steady-state occurrence in the population (similar to how evolutionary psychologists talk about psychopathy having ~2% prevalence and that if it drops too low or goes too high, the society suffers.) Too many autists and basic functions don't get done (ND people are 'notorious' for struggling with routine tasks...) too few autists and there isn't enough dynamism, creativity, problem solving to keep society moving in a positive direction. (Death by bureaucracy...)
Ultimately, I think we're still in the "discovering how prevalent ND is phase" and once we have accurate population-level numbers, we'll discover that:
A. ASD/ADHD are way, WAY more prevelant than anyone ever thought.
B. The overwhelming majority of ND people are due to genetics, with only relatively few being environmental.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
I've been really struggling with this in DevOps for a long time - everywhere I go, I end up on a "team" of individuals, working on disparate work streams, with very little day-to-day collaboration.
Sure, for simple admin stuff, this is fine, but when you have to do something complex / implement something new, I often need to spend much longer on knowledge transfer (partly because of the junior nature of my colleagues).
This is something I'm going to take a much harder line on as I think it really would be a Silver Bullet for so much; in the DevOps context, this would mean more like one person doing, the other documenting, which is at least a line I can try to placate the bean-counters...
19
-
19
-
I have worked in heterogeneous environments. It doesn't matter what/where it is, it always becomes a cluster; the 'cancer' comment is absolutely spot-on.
The fundamental issue is that those pushing Rust are not doing it for technical reasons - they are doing it for political (to push Rust) reasons. They want to be able to say "Use Rust, because it's in the Linux Kernel." This is obviously the reason, because the reasons for Rust simply don't make sense unless it spans the entire codebase.
The fundamental objective of the Rust people is to rewrite the kernel in Rust. This, again, is obvious, again, for the reason above. Given that this is their objective, they should simply sit down and do the obvious thing and implement their own kernel, rather than trying to hijack Linux.
There are many reasons they should do this, chief amongst them is that Rust should, in theory, enable them to re-implement existing functions 'better' than the Linux equivalent. There is no reason this new kernel could not mimic/track the Linux API 100% (even if this were done, explicitly, as some sort of compatibility layer).
The one, obvious, reason they won't, is because they know how much effort it will be and how difficult it will be to get people to switch from Linux, because they understand what technical inertia is. The only answer to this is simple: they believe in the superiority of Rust or they don't.
As long as Linux remains successful, there will always be someone with my kind of attitude involved (Linux will begin to fail when there are no people with this attitude; I personally do not work on Linux right now, but I believe I'm reflecting the attitude of the current maintainers who are objecting to Rust). The reason Linux will begin to fail when there are no gatekeepers left is simple and obvious - every Tom, Dick and Harry will try to hijack the Linux kernel/Kernel Project for their own ends. How can I be certain of this? Human nature, that's how.
It's all silly drama, which is driven by fundamentally dishonest people and everyone is either focussing on the drama or is simply being too polite to call them on their BS.
Edit: fix some sleep-dep-induced typos and bad grammar 😅
19
-
19
-
19
-
@TheLiberal-d3n Wow. That's a bold claim.
The Bengal Famine was not "created" intentionally. In fact, it's utterly moronic to suggest it was, primarily, because anyone with half a brain understands that a starving population is going to be much less willing to fight an invader.
Could Britain have done more? Maybe. But you know, there was a war on, you know. One that, had Britain lost, would not have guaranteed Indian independence.
Oh, you can claim that Japan would have given India independence, but only Britain did.
As to the Potato Famine... Well, that, again is more complex.
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@19822andy Define "absolutely disastrous".
Major cities will suffer months of aerial bombardment? Ships bringing goods to UK will be sunk by submarines?
Businesses in the UK are ready for a no-deal - not that you'd know it from the propaganda you get from the BBC.
1. We ALREADY get huge amounts of food from outside the EU - most of the oranges I buy are from South Africa or Israel (depending on time of year and which supermarket I go to). I know that a major UK supermarket has already got contingency to buy 100% of its veg from North Africa, if the EU started to play silly buggers (something which would only hurt EU farmers; how long would that last?).
2. The UK government is in control of customs checks - if there was a "shortage" of something critical, like medicines, then the government could charter a plane - or send the ruddy RAF - over to the continent to pick up whatever was required and just wave it through. Sure, there may be some delays and additional costs, but ANY change is going to incur these - should the Irish not have become independent? The Indians? The South Africans?
No, life would go on with very little or no disruption for people like you and me BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MUCH MONEY TO BE MADE on both sides of the channel and THAT is what they're afraid of; they're afraid that business people, who're good at making money, will find ways to make Britain successful - of making money - outside the EU.
And just as a historical note, Napoleon tried to blockade the UK. He failed, because the blockade was bad for business.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Continental-System
The ONLY people it will be "absolutely disastrous" for are our politicians, as they'll no longer have the EXCUSE that "the EU made us do it".
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
I have some experience with low code development with one of the large (largest?) low code platforms, in a legal context.
The best summary I have, I credit to a colleague: "It's great for rapid prototyping."
From my perspective, it was just like any other tool in engineering: you end up replacing one problem with another; you're shifting the complexity around, rather than fundamentally reducing it.
Biggest problems we had was around architecture and lifecycle management.
Unlike (usually) .NET or Java (or dynamically linked C/C++), when the platform needed updating, the application needed to be rebuilt - and therefore retested.
There were also architecture problems - because the app had been developed by non-programmers, they didn't have the understanding/appreciation/experience of how GOD AWFUL ORMs can be and the dangers of accidentally slurping vast quantities of data over the network.
There were also other issues - bugs that couldn't be diagnosed and corrected by someone who understood lower-level HTTP/HTML and Java (yes, me... And I loathe Java 😂)
Another MAJOR downside was the cost - the infrastructure was EXPENSIVE, plus we had lawyers writing software... Essentially, we ended up with untestable, poorly functioning software, written by amateurs that was extremely expensive to develop and run... And a bloody nightmare to maintain!
It was great for the lawyers, because they had the sense of involvement, control and progress (all the things lawyers are predisposed to), but the cost of delivery was insane - it would have been FAR cheaper to employ a couple of good/experienced devs full-time and use cheaper infrastructure (even public cloud...)
Like I said, it would be good for prototyping: let the lawyers sketch-out something that kinda does what they want, but then had it over to experienced devs to "build properly".
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@hittingdasauce 🤦♂️ No, just make sure you understand what was happening, rather than taking the simplistic "British in charge, therefore British to blame," which is complete nonsense, primarily because it assumes government is omnipotent.
But then, being a Socialist/Communist, you believe government is omnipotent, so, comes with the territory, I suppose. 🤷♂️
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@ DOGE was just an existing agency, renamed.
Your citation of the Constitution is a misunderstanding. The President is embodied all Executive Authority. This includes Police powers. What DOGE is doing is an example of the Police powers and is only being used against the Executive branch, therefore Congress can have no say, as, effectively, it is something the President could do in person.
The section of the Constitution you're talking about is where the president wishes to create a department and needs money, Congress will need to appropriate and apportion the funds. There could be some limits set on the way a department operates, but those limits cannot supersede executive authority - the heads of executive agencies could not be appointed by Congress, for example.
Ultimately, the question is "is this something the President could do in person?" If the answer is yes, then the president can delegate someone to do it on his behalf. That is what he's done with DOGE.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Just so you know, that "50% of food is thrown away" includes ALL food - including things that aren't edible, like apple cores, melon skins, etc.
It's further interesting to note that, when it comes to food there is no "correct amount", there is either "too much" or "too little"; it's not possible for supply to perfectly match demand due to the inherent variability in farming.
Sure, if we could precisely measure the exact nutritional requirements for every person and produce food in a completely controlled environment, with 100% guaranteed yields, and then store and transport it without any delay or loss due to accidents, we could, theoretically, have "zero waste" in food.
Meanwhile, in reality, I'd rather "waste" a little food occasionally than condemn everyone to starvation and malnutrition...
Unsustainable agriculture is clearly demented, but the main proponents of unsustainable practices are actually Environmentalists - especially the militant vegan types.
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
This author could have saved us all some time by saying "Good engineering is hard, time consuming and expensive."
Overall he contradicts himself. He says "DevOps bad", but then says you need people with skills in both areas. 👍🤦♂️
Here's the "secret" of DevOps: it's just good Systems Engineering. We just call it DevOps for the benefit of management types who don't know DNS from a runaway chain reaction.
So much of what he complains about, is a sign that there are architectural issues or that the system has outgrown the staffing levels.
Also, his advocating for "engineers should be able to do whatever the hell they like" is about the most retarded thing I've heard in a loooong time.
Holy sweet Jesus! Have you ever had to support a heterogeneous environment? Ever had to take one over?
Yes, you need to be using the most appropriate tools for a job, but what tools you have must be used consistently, so that others can unpick your mess when you leave.
Does this mean that larger organisations become more stiltified? YES, OF COURSE IT DOES, because that's the fucking DEFINITION of a "big business".
Frankly, this guy comes across as "just" a programmer (not least of all because of his "hobbyist" comment!!!), who doesn't like doing serious engineering.
I'm a serious professional, fuck-you-very-much. I'm not a "hobbyist". This shit is HARD and made harder by tools like this that refuse to accept that engineering is about compromise.
Further, devs who have "no interest in the platform" are, by definition, amateurs; F1 drivers know almost as much about the cars as the people that designed and built them. This is the attitude that software engineers need to have about platform.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
For many years, I have seen a future that is basically big-brained, highly educated and skilled people (think Elon Musk types), trades and human services (bar work, hair dressers, chefs etc).
The "generic office worker" will disappear. People at the top will be so in demand that they will be forced to employ gardeners, plumbers etc, because I will be "cheaper" for them to employ a highly skilled and reliably tradey, than to learn how to do plumbing themselves.
I currently employ a gardener, because it would take me a LONG time to develop the skills, it would be expensive (equipment) and very time consuming (Lee does the job in 1/4 of the time it would take me...)
Human services will remain - sure, the "fully automated bar" will be popular, but once the the novelty wears off, people will chose pubs/bars with human staff, purely for the social contact.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@michaelscott-joynt3215 Morally, I strongly disagree with you.
"They're an elected politician" should NOT grant immunity against a charge of treason/sedition/terrorism.
If an any politician is inciting - or even just encouraging - violence and/or intimidation, against the politicians on the other side, something that is anathema to the democratic process, then they should be dealt with in just the same way that an unelected individual would.
It's called "equality before the law". It is precisely because "there are no kings" that this is the case.
Even the Queen is subject to the law (though, she can't commit treason against herself, obviously 🤣).
Remember: we executed a King to prove this principle.
If it is the case that they cannot be held to account, legally, for what they say and do, when what they say and do would see you or I in prison, THAT is corruption. THAT is tyrannical.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression that, *Constitutionally*, not just morally, any action taken against tyranny is justified.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@RaRa-eu9mw This isn't about "glorifying" anything.
It is a marker, a signpost in our history.
This is about cleansing the history so that, in the future, evil people can turn around and say "ours is a history of perfection, we are the perfect people, therefore, anything we do is justified".
And who could argue with them, when the effigies and NAMES of all who "did wrong" have been erased?
"Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it."
THAT is why they need to "erase the history of slavery" - because, they want to bring it back. They want to take their enemies and lesser people and use them as slaves. EVERY Communist country has become ethno-nationalist eventually; look at China today, where if you're not a Han Chinese, you can't get into a high office and look at how their treating black and Muslim people.
Read 1984. And keep reading it until you understand that what I'm saying is true.
Don't buy into their nonsense - don't be a "useful idiot" (look up the term).
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I strongly disagree.
Buildings, like cities, are living things - more akin to trees than anything else. Just as we don't cut down an old tree for the sake of it, when one is full of rot and no longer sprouts leaves in Spring, we cut it down to allow another tree to take its place.
Some buildings are mistakes. Some buildings are not of a lasting (materially) construction. Some buildings are beyond renovation and repurposing.
This is a particular problem with a lot of the Brutalist buildings of the 60s and 70s, where the materials were not understood and were driven by political ideology, rather than other "normal" architectural considerations. They are often preserved for political reasons - often in spite of all practical considerations.
High-rise housing is a particular issue, as, in many cases, their density is LOWER than traditional housing (due to building regulations), yet they come with a whole host of additional social problems.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@sqeaky8190 Here's a thought:
If it can (only) "pass" or "fail", it's a test. Otherwise, it's an evaluation.
If it's a test - binary - then computers can do that. If computers can do it, they can probably do it better (cheaper) than a human. If it's cheaper for a computer, then it should be done by a computer.
If your requirements are expressed correctly, they should be translatable to binary checks (does it do this?), which means they are testable. If it's testable, then is should be done by a computer - automated. Cucumber is a means of automating testing to requirements.
Cucumber didn't "co-opt" BDD, it is a necessary and logical conclusion of BDD. If Cucumber is bad, write a better tool, but don't dismiss the technique underlying it.
(I'm on the fence with Cucumber as a tool; haven't spent enough time exploring alternatives)
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@buca512boxer Wow, you really have a hateboner for Elon, don't you?
Elon has a degree in Physics and is intimately involved in the design process. If you listen to him talking to Everyday Astronaut, you would know this.
Were von Braun's designs fully-reuseable, fully-automated and with the capability for rapid turn-around? Do you even know why methane is used as a fuel?
The "issues" you are describing, in terms of refuelling are not "defects" in the Starship design, they are hard limitations of chemical rockets. The only reasonable alternative to Starship, would be to create an orbital shipyard and fabricate vessels better suited for deep space.
Like that's easy 🤦♂️
Falcon 9 has boosters that have flown 15 missions. If you went back "58 years", and told the Saturn V engineers, they'd be massively impressed.
Finally, Starship is at the absolute cutting edge of what's possible. SpaceX is explicitly taking a different approach to the development of Starship and they are not just building a rocket, they are building a mass-manufactured rocket - SpaceX is investing as much into the manufacturing process as the vehicle itself.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@samjohns8381 Design is not requirements.
Maybe TDD has evolved since Beck wrote his book? 🤔
The origins and evolution of a technique are not the issue at hand, the applicability to now is.
That said, the corpus of software engineering between the late 90s until the mid 2010s was heavily focused on optimising requirements elicitation, as this was seen as the greatest challenge in practical software delivery.
What you are describing is "how do I deal with a customer who doesn't know what they want?" which is both within the requirements elicitation space and Beck's key interests as an author.
I say again: separate the what your code is trying to achieve from how you are going to achieve it. By definition what is a requirement, how is design.
If you have the what, then your tests should remain consistent (you ARE testing at the interface, right???), which means you're then free to change the how any way you want.
API design is basically a solved problem, so major revisions shouldn't be necessary, if you've put the effort in up front. But designing your APIs right means understanding the problem, which implies having clear requirements... Which returns us to the beginning.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
China has always been an empire, forged through conquest. The dynasties changed through violence.
It's necessary to be positive and strive for higher ideals, but we cannot forget that there are those who will make the amassing of power their life's work - and will lie, cheat, steal and kill to get "just a little more". Forgetting this is equivalent to leaving your doors and windows wide-open at night.
China sees itself as 'The Middle Kingdom', that is, the natural global ruler. The fact that China never started foreign wars, until the Communist era, was likely as much due to technological and developmental stagnation as a result of their culture and the size of its territory - the land mass of China was so large that it had to spend the majority of it's effort maintaining internal stability, rather than looking to external expansion.
Tibet, Vietnam and Korea have been invaded by Communist China.
I'm not certain that "making an enemy" of China is an optional course, well, at least if we wish to live in a world where Anglo-Saxon values of individual worth, autonomy and responsibility are to remain... Even forgetting AS culture, China is aggressively seeking to seize territory from its neighbours, through a variety of means. While not the same, there are clear parallels between Communist China and the mid-century Germans, with one marked difference - China is infinitely more patient than the drugged-up failed Austrian artist.
It is clear that any claim that "China is a benevolent and benign" entity with "no interest in influencing the world outside its own borders", is at best naïve and at worst deeply treacherous.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Michael-Archonaeus Christianity is based on Judaism.
Judaism has an oral tradition of understanding of the scriptures that isn't contained in the words of the scriptures.
That and the English translation of the Bible is imperfect - there are many passages that are more "poetic" than accurately reflecting the true meaning of the original words. That is, there may be a word that was translated to "the nearest equivalent English", which loses a lot of the meaning (which is often subtextual) of the original.
And generally, it is a very complex, inter-referential text.
When Jesus said "It is you who say that I am", this is not just him saying "you're saying something I never claimed", he is also invoking the name of God - "I am" is literally (one of) the names of God, from the Old Testament (see Exodus).
When you've been raised a Catholic, been to church every week for over a decade, been around the community, you know more than the text of the Bible. It's unsatisfying to others, because it's a "vibe", but you know, instinctively, when someone says "the Bible says this, therefore", whether they are correct or not.
TIK is very right at a superficial level, but wrong at the deeper subtextual and philosophical.
"Blaming" Socialism on Christianity is like blaming the firefighters instead of the arsonists, because "they both deal with fire".
6
-
6
-
@TentaclePentacle Right, but what's in the best interest of the patient?
His body was being maintained by machinery, yet, to my understanding, his organs had begun to fail.
If that's the case, in whose interest is it to keep him "alive", rather than allowing nature to take its course?
Even if one takes the position that the parents became the patient, if he's dead, then there's a duty not to prolong their suffering, by feeding them false hope.
There is, also, the REALITY, that there are evil people who will EXPLOIT parents and leech money from them for their own ends.
IIRC Charlie Gard had mitochondrial disease, which, regardless of the noise being put out by the media (who were chasing clicks), there is NO CURE. Any cure, to be effective, would NEED to be administered in the egg before conception.
6
-
6
-
@beverlyjohnson7254 Sorry, but you're just wrong on this.
What you're seeing is a structured, deliberate and trained response.
The man actually jabs the cop who pushed him in the side/arm RIGHT WHERE HIS GUN IS.
That is why he got pushed back.
Next, he falls backwards and the cop in the front line see this and the cop's INSTINCT is to stop and check that the guy is okay. Just as he's crouching to check, another officer, presumably sergeant or other senior officer, shoves him forward, telling him to leave him and move keep moving forward AND IMMEDIATELY RADIOS FOR ASSISTANCE (you can see him move his right hand up to his radio, mounted on his left shoulder).
Why? Because the police have medics who are following behind the lines.
What they're doing, by moving forwards, is ensuring that there's a secure, controlled space where the medics can operate safely.
If you watch the full clip carefully, you'll notice that there's actually a whole bunch of cops rendering aid to the man.
Imagine if this were a full-blown riot, where there's a mass of people right in front of the police lines... How could they help the guy if they're fighting a violent thug right on top of where he fell?
It LOOKS bad, but the police did the right thing and they should be exonorated of any wrongdoing.
Edit: fix typos.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I think a large element of what is said about Elon is disingenuous; people see him as "the rocket" or "EV guy" and do not listen to what he actually says.
In his latest Lex Friedman interview, when talking about resolution, he clearly discussed the possibility of using electrodes to create interference patterns that enable higher resolution that the number of electrodes themselves would imply.
(This is the same approach used in lithography for producing microchips at smaller and smaller resolutions.)
To me, this indicates an extremely sophisticated understanding of the potential ways forward, even if some of them turn out to be blind alleys (no pun intended).
As to brain mapping... This is tricky. The visual cortex fixes around 8, and, I believe, is one of the least plastic of all regions (not my area of expertise, but have some issues with my eyesight, so have done some research...).
That said, our brains are incredibly adaptable and it may be the case that the brain of a patient will simply adapt to the incoming signals, obviating the need for such deep pre-mapping technology.
I for one am going to remain optimistic that we truly are in the "it's just an engineering problem now" phase of development.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Interesting. I actually think JBP dropped the ball here - he went straight into his usual anti-left tack, but did so in his very high-minded way - like he was talking to post-grads, rather than 1st years.
This was a mistake, as, more than anything, he didn't address the question and keep it ON the question.
That and you need to bring people along with you; I knew what JBP was talking about, but would someone who HADN'T seen him before? This is why Fry was more successful, in my view.
By this, I mean that the way lefties "debate" is by constantly shifting the goal post, by deflecting and changing the subject; by making it about the person, rather than the subject.
An example would be when JBP said "Auschwitz", the question went from "some bad" to "something recent".
What has "recent bad things by far-right" got to do with Political Correctness? The problem is, that by NOT saying tightly focused on PC and refusing to allow the debate to move off-topic, JBP opened the door for those nasty (they called him "Mr", not Dr or Professor), idiot lefties to use their "usual" tactics of distraction, which is why they persist; when you pin them down, they have nothing - they survive by being slippery, so THAT is what you need to tackle when you debate them.
It was really nice to see Fry with JBP, but it was clear they hadn't really talked beforehand (perhaps a schedule issue), but I'm REALLY hoping to see them together again soon, having a serious discussion...
5
-
@TheImperatorKnight I am facing my childhood trauma, which is why I'm so angered by your surface-level analysis of Christianity.
I was raised a Catholic and lost my faith at 14 (I'm now 44). I know you are wrong - returning to Christianity, to Christian teaching, really understanding the difference between Christianity and Socialism, is what's helping me, even though I don't "believe".
You are wrong about Christian teaching. You are wrong about your understanding of the Bible.
Christianity and Socialism are diametrically opposed, because they have VERY different philosophical roots.
"The Pope isn't Catholic, he's a Socialist." Is a refrain that it's VERY easy to find amongst Catholics. We may not all be able to articulate why, but we know it's true.
The root of Christianity is "you are born imperfect, but can be better; you are responsible for your actions", the root of Socialism is "you are perfect and everything bad that happens to you is because of others; you are not responsible for what happens to you".
You mistake evil people twisting Christian teaching for a "problem" with Christianity itself.
Almost the entirety of the modern world exists because of Christianity, not in spite of it, so to say that it's "fundamentally wrong" means there's something you don't understand.
Your analysis also completely ignores free will.
Your fundamental problem is not faith or Christianity, it is simply that you are intelligent and able to see more of the world than most. Yes, it sucks. Welcome to the club.
"Altruism", as you describe it, is really "pathological altruism". Altruism is a group adaptive trait - this is Evolutionary Psychology.
A group full of individuals willing to sacrifice for each other is more likely to succeed - how do you think the SAS function?!?!
I understand the torment you are going through and I can promise you that "selfishness" is not the way out.
True understanding of duty, service, sacrifice and gratitude - of community and meaning - are what you need.
And no, not everyone can be saved! This is one of the Painful Truths of Christian teaching - something that many do not understand.
This doesn't mean you give up - I have a nephew who has fallen down the Socialist rabbit hole. He is miserable as a result, but can't see the cause/effect. I can't help him, but I still try - I just don't allow myself to despair over it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Except having multiple languages in a project creates additional problems that are not always apparent. Being an expert in 2 languages is not easy to maintain.
It's interesting that a lot of the comments are "Rust doesn't let you do certain things, and that's good." So why are you trying to do them in the first place?
My concern is always with devs understanding what their code is doing. "Magic" makes me nervous as, in my experience, it tends to people being able to write code that works, without demanding they understand how and why.
Call me a fuddy-duddy, but I don't feel comfortable with people like that working on something as important as Linux.
This not about the here-and-now, it's about the future - the early adopters will be (very) above average developers AND THIS IS THE PROBLEM. The likes of Lina are clearly upper-tier who already have "all the understanding". But being an expert blinds you and what is optimal for you can be an insurmountable barrier to a novice. This is a well-known problem - there's a case study of the UK air traffic control system, where the design was developed using experienced operators and they loved it, but new operators simply couldn't use the system at all.
Rule #1 in safe software development is: the person coming behind you isn't as good as you, write accordingly.
I know I'm talking in vague generalities, but this is entirely come from over a decade of seeing large and complex software projects going wrong and understanding the reasons why.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@martinwood2219 It's mentioned in the video, but it's really overlooked - the Royal Navy.
Most of the actions we here about were small-scale, long-range; River Plate 3 on 1, Denmark Strait 2 on 2...
But the Home Fleet - all of it - going up against a dense formation of unarmoured transports...
I'm not a Navy man, but I'm pretty sure there would have been some absolutely Nelsonesque tactics "Forget maneuver, just go hard at them."
My bet is that the Home Fleet would simply have driven straight through the middle of the invasion flotilla - so close they couldn't miss and so close that U-boats and German MTBs would have to risk hitting their own...
Both glorious and terrible, but given, as pointed out, the British could afford the losses and the Germans couldn't, the invasion would have to be called off, with Dieppe-levels of losses for the Germans.
I think what would be more interesting is if Sealion HAD been attempted, how that would have shifted the balance strategically:
With almost all of Germany's elite/experienced formations dead or mauled to ineffectiveness, what would happen subsequently?
Would Crete have fallen? Greece?
Would the loss of naval power suffered by Britain have meant that, ultimately, the Mediterranean would be lost, even though Germany would have lost so many troops?
Or would the fact that the invasion was so comprehensively crushed mean less troops were held back in Britain and the morale impact be devastating to the Germans?
5
-
5
-
@GingeRenee Honestly, I don't know, but faith compels me to believe it's possible. I know psychopathy/sociopathy is not, as this has a physical element (brain structures).
Narcissism, at its heart, is driven by belief and lack of taking responsibility.
In my late teens, I think I was on the path to full-blown narcissism (vulnerable, not grandiose), but I got help and support that began correcting my thought patterns. It's only the past 2 years or so that I'm finally purging the last really narcissistic thoughts. I'm now 43.
Coincidentally, my life is also much better - the more I took responsibility for what was going on, the happier and more successful I became. We all have ego and a little narcissism, of course, but pathological narcissism is destructive to yourself and everyone around you - only really good looking people can ever get away with it (Amber Heard, Justin Trudeau...)
So, is it curable? If it's caught young enough or the treatment is extreme enough, maybe it is? But does society have the stomach to treat narcissists the way they need to be to be cured? Almost certainly not.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@supernova5107 Certainly, though the evidence is that a balance works best - Free Trade is the best thing, but to be truly "Free", everyone must play by the same rules, which in practice, can happen, but rarely (if ever) does. "Real Free Trade has never been tried..." and all that...
To me, a balance between allowing Free Trade, but being very watchful of manipulation and ensuring no one nation ever archives a (near) monopoly on any one commodity, especially where there are strategic questions - oil and microchips, for example. Consumer goods are less of a concern, I mean, sure, would sucknif I can't get a new pair of trainers when I want, but it's a hardship I could stomach if it meant not sending my money to someone who wants to enslave me...
The thing to understand is that, in the short-term, this will make things more expensive, but this has to be viewed as insurance, with that the only things in life that are certain are death, war and taxes...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@heliotropezzz333 I agree, politician don't want to be accountable, which is why so many of them were desperate to keep us in the EU.
The CS has a culture of unaccountability, which is inherent in traditional a-political model, which is fine, as long as the CS code is rigourously enforced.
The problem is that bad actors have, for some time now, exploited this for their own political ends. That and I have 1st-hand accounts of people being covicted FRAUD while working for HMRC (of all places!) and STILL keeping their jobs!!!
Also, take Universal Credit - it's JUST a payroll system. It should've taken 5 months to implement, instead of over 5 years NOT to implement (am a computer programmer, so have some insight into this). The only reason it doesn't work is because people don't WANT it to. And when I say "people", I mean the civil servants tasked with implementation.
If this were my project, in the private sector, I'd have been sacked 3-times over.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the CS you knew and love is fast becoming a memory.
ALL institutions need a regular shake-up, in order to weed-out corruption and inject new life. The time for this to happen to the CS is long overdue.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
THANK YOU!
I've been convinced of this for years, and all the explanations have always left a bad taste in my mouth - they all rely on "instant" transmission, which, as a computer scientist, makes me instantly suspicious.
Sadly, I don't have the physics background to prove it, but Lorentz transformations have always seemed the key to me; logically, there must be a frame of reference that provides a completely linear perspective, so any travel can be translated into this frame.
If there is such a monotonic frame, then as long as you don't violate causality in this frame, you can't be violating causality in any other frame, it just appears that you are, like an optical illusion.
What you describe as the co-moving frame seems to match this idea...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@gootchspooch9 One truth, three lies.
TRUE: He called his friend, not 911.
Yes, you're right here, though, it was widely misreported that he had called 911.
But, would this be the friend he was with earlier in the day, who was in Kenosha?
But more to the point... A 17 year-old had a life-changing experience and the first person he called was his bestie? Nooooooo! Say. It. Isn't. So!
LIE: He was carrying illegally.
Debunked. The weapon NEVER crossed state lines. The law that the activists are screeching about has a specific exclusion that permits 16 and 17 year-olds to openly carry a rifle. The YouTube lawyersphere are absolutely unanimous on this: Kyle was LAWFULLY exercising his 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.
LIE: He shot unnecessarily.
He was attacked - unlawfully assaulted - by exactly 4 people. He shot at exactly 4 people.
The first, was a large, physically fit man, who, judging by footage from earlier that day, had violent intent. Kyle shot him 5 times. Once he was no longer being attacked, he stopped shooting. This happened after Kyle had tried to run away from a mob and immediately after a 3rd party fired a handgun (seen and heard on the initial video of the incident). Kyle had reasonable grounds, in my opinion, to believe he was under imminent threat of harm.
The second attacker, Kyle shot at while he was being kicked on the ground. This person fled once lead was put in his direction.
The third person hit Kyle on the head with a lethal weapon (skateboard). Kyle fired ONCE. When this person ran off, Kyle stopped shooting. This individual died because he was hit in the heart.
(If you don't think that a skateboard is a lethal weapon, I would ask this: would you be willing to let me hit you over the head repeatedly with one? No, thought not.)
The fourth and final attacker - Mr Muscle - was a FELON in possession of a firearm (a Glock-style semi-automatic). After Kyle shot the skater, Mr Muscle pot his hands up, Kyle paused. Mr Muscle then lunged for Kyle and at THIS point, Kyle shot him one in the right arm - the pistol that this felon WAS illegally carrying, being in the right hand. Kyle didn't "finish him off". He eliminated the threat.
There was a 5th man, behind Me Muscle. Kyle presented his rifle to him and Jonny 5 put his hands up, held them there and backed away. Jonny 5 is alive for a reason.
LIE: Kyle fled the state because he knew what he did was wrong.
For one, he TRIED to surrender to police immediately as they arrived, but they didn't UNDERSTAND what was happening and why he was trying to surrender to them.
This is evident as he doesn't just walk past the cops - he tried to approach the passenger windows.
And as for "fleeing the state" he didn't "flee", he WENT HOME. Saying he "fled the state" absolutely spin - exactly what you accuse others of doing!
Kyle worked in Kenosha. He lives in town that's approximately 20 minutes away, which happens to be in Illinois - this is like someone who works in Bristol and lives on the other side of the Severn Bridge and talking about "fleeing to another country". In fact, the Bristol/Wales example is not even right, because I'll be damned if I can get across the Severn (assuming the bridge is open...) and drive into Bristol in less than 30 minutes.
UTTER NONSENSE.
You are the one spinning for "your side". The video evidence is clear, the truth has been exposed - they even delayed his extradition, because they're not sure the charges are fair!!!
4
-
@MrWizardGG Sorry, you're talking about something you clearly do not understand.
We do not need "credibility" to be 'granted to us' by 'older, establised' fields.
The work of computer scientists and therefore, the field more generally, is only deserving of the credibility it gains from standing on its own two feet; we are only as credible as our ability to do good science.
If Computer Science is treated any other way, it is 'merely' a sub-field of those, from which, it steals its credibility.
This is The Way of Science. Any 'Computer Scientist' who would argue otherwise, should be treated with deep skepticism, in my opinion.
Alan Turing was a mathematician. He has had a profound impact on physics, by enabling the the development of digital computers, which have already enabled experiments that would not otherwise have been possible.
It is a nonsense to say that his mathematical paper is deserving of a Nobel Prize, because that is not what then NP in Physics is supposed to be for!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
King Crimson Yeah, all fine, until someone builds a quantum computer and it becomes defunct overnight... Real, physical, tangible things are the only way forwards.
Don't care if it's gold, grain, electricity stored in batteries, but as soon as the unit of exchange is disconnected from physical goods, you've put Capitalism into a death spiral... Like Communism, it's a long, drawn-out death spiral, but it seems pretty obvious that's where we are...
Since Breton Woods, we've had shocks and crises, which your always going to have, but when each one is worse than the previous and the answer is always "more if what got us here"... Well, isn't that what the Communists say?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Michael-Archonaeus Sorry, I missed some of your points because of app issues.
How's your Hebrew? Yes the New Testament was mostly Greek, but what about the Old?
Whole chapters? What about when you need to reference other books to fully understand the context?
It's as old for you as it is for me. I'm tired of the same, tired criticisms, that are all word-based, rather than practical/philosophical. I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I am an engineer and I understand systems and I've learnt to recognise a system that works and when I don't understand it enough to recreate it.
It's always easier to destroy than create. Christianity and Judaism have lasted for thousands of years, so there must be some validity to them. If you can't see that, that's a failing on your part, not of the system.
You don't like this because I'm hand-waving.
Yes, but then, it doesn't bother me, because I have humility and Faith. My guess would be it bothers you, because you don't.
If you're looking for answers in words on a page - or you think that burning books (metaphorically) will bring you peace, then you really HAVE missed the point.
Just like TIK.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@heliotropezzz333 The example I cite of fraud is indicative of a system that has lost its way... Which is the point.
If a government "goes to war" with the CS, then the ONLY legitimate response is a complete and unconditional surrender - not strikes, not complaining in the media. Rolling-over and taking it, any which way the government decides. If you don't like it, you resign.
Clearly, governments have to work with the CS, but there must NEVER, EVER be any doubt in the mind of civil servants of their place and I don't think that is the case anymore. You need to execute an admiral every now-and-then, to keep the others focused, as it were...
Sorry to come across so hard-line, but I've spent a LOT of time studying power and organisations ("soft systems")... You draw a hard line at the top, because it always gets watered-down at the bottom (or worse, you get hard lines at the bottom and soft at the top!!!)
I'm afraid that UC is that simple. Payroll systems are a solved problem, the only thing required is a fairly rudimentary decision support system that implements the UC rules. To be fair I was being slightly hyperbolic about 5 months, but I was trying to make a point: to someone like me, an experienced professional Software Engineer, UC is an almost undergraduate-level problem. Sorry, just the way it is, so I have to ascribe ill motive, as I cannot believe anyone is THAT monumentally incompetent...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@antonioklaic4839 Yet. We weren't slaves yet.
And we won't be, because we voted to leave and got out before Theresa was able to sign-over our forces to The Union.
And if you try to tell me that's a myth, don't bother, the documents are there, the images are there. The testimony is there.
The EU leaders want to create a new Holy Roman Empire. No one ever wanted to build an empire "of the good" or otherwise, without applying military force.
It's just the way it works - you don't have to go back too far in history to see this pattern emerge.
Within 5 years of the formation of the EU army, they will go to war with someone and it will be unpopular and no one in the EU will care, even if it is a disaster...
Assuming that the EU lasts that long, which, hopefully, it won't.
3
-
3
-
@daveshongkongchinachannel A lot of them didn't, because mining was all they had and all they knew.
Some did okay, obviously, but former mining areas are still some of the most deprived.
Ironically, Tony Blair was right - poverty of ambitionis the problem, but from where I stand, this is something that was inflicted on those communities by Socialists.
They were taught to be helpless, that government owed them a job.
There's also an interesting difference about the 20th Century - just how static populations became.
Until the 20th Century, people would move to the jobs - if there was no work, a town would disappear; this is why we have ancient ruins like Gobleki Tepi, why people moved from the countryside to the cities.
There's obviously far more to it, but that's the cliff notes...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@drewp.weiner5708 ahhh... Right, yes, that's because I don't see a distinction 🙂
Da Vinci was a scientist AND an artist. One of the best of both in his time. I do not see this as coincidence.
You know about Golden Ratio and that musical structure is mathematical?
Art and science are the same; they are different aspects of human nature bounded by the same rules (fundamental structure of the reality; nature itself).
Postmodernist philosophy rejects any attempt at a systematic approach as "tyrannical", which is, from what I understand, what Rick was getting at; that there ARE systematic approaches and that you CAN use them to create innovative music; that you don't need to wholesale reject a structured understanding of music.
(Postmodernism and intersectionality are inextricably linked and it's the latter which is fundamentally racist - it ACTIVELY seeks to draw group-based comparisons, on the basis of skin colour, which is the heart of racism ("I have a dream..."). Postmodernism is used as the means of attacking Empiricism, which actually stands against racism. Ask yourself this: how do you scientifically TEST for race?
Answer: you can't.
You can talk about group behaviours, but that's culture, not race. You can talk about probabilities of certain genetic features arising in a geographically clustered population, but that that's statistics, not a test.
"Postmodernists" tend to be racists while claiming they are not and slamming the one thing that truly isn't.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ImOk... Given that you interpreted my initial response "to you" as an attack says more about you than it does me.
You were berating someone for "bragging" about having a "gas guzzling SUV", when they're clearly trolling. Which is hysterical, in both senses of the word.
You said that they were being shortsighted. I simply made the point that shortsightedness is a matter of perspective. The Environmentalists claim to know "The Truth" when it comes to climate change, which is ludicrous and is deeply rooted in hubris; they believe themselves God, so everything they do MUST have an impact on the world. I simply see them for who they are and do not have the arrogance to elevate myself to that level.
When you said "no one is supporting JSO", that's patently false, there are several people excusing JSO in this thread, so when you say they weren't, well, that is the very definition of gaslighting. Calling this a "buzzword" is precisely what a narcissist, who is in the business of gaslighting, would say. Unless you really are so dim that you can't see them?
Overall, I've found your responses in this thread highly entertaining, primarily for their complete absence of self-awareness, combined with a hint of unshakable belief that anthropogenic climate change is "definitely real".
I see through you and I'm enjoying dissecting your half-witted word vomit, though, to be fair, it's starting to feel like beating up the disabled kid at this point. 🤷 😂
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ModernSoftwareEngineeringYT "The user is always wrong."
I get really... irritated... when devs shirk their responsibilities for some aspect of the software development process. We're supposed to be the experts, so if we didn't guide/check, then how can we be surprised when we "don't get what we need"?
I think the OP's response is the same you get when devs make excuses for not doing TDD "I'm here to write code, not tests"; it stems from poor education - mis-framing of the job.
The job of a developer (or "software engineer") is to "deliver, as efficiently as possible, working software that meets the user's needs", but too many developers ("coders") see their job as "writing code" - I particularly liked your breakdown that showed devs are entirely or jointly responsible for each aspect of the software development process.
This is no different to the role of doctors in medicine - the role of the doctor is to ensure patients receive the correct care. Doctors can't blame nurses for "failing to give the right medicine" if the doctor didn't specify it correctly; they can't blame nurses for the patient dying if the doctor never checked that the patient was receiving the correct care.
The answer to me seems to be to beat this view into junior devs as early as possible, ideally pre-university.
Of course, we still have the problem of too many "software managers" who don't understand what software development actually involves, but, one problem at a time... 😁
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Also, I'm very leery of modern construction techniques - overuse of concrete, for example.
Victoria Gate (Leeds, England) is a good example. It's all concrete and glass (with tactical red brick so that it fits better with the surrounding red brick and limestone). Externally, it's ugly; when you see the concrete next to the limestone, it just looks cheap.
Internally, the arcade (mall) is awful - the proportions are terrible, with very narrow lanes compared to the height. This is in stark contrast to Victoria Quarter, which has almost perfect proportions.
VQ's main acrade is wide and tall, but actually opens wider at the 1st floor (um, 2nd to US readers...) This creates a wonderful space, which is why it is no surprise that it is so popular.
I'm not saying they should have cloned the Victorian styling of VQ in VG, but they could a taken some hints!!!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bleack8701 Did you watch the same video I did? Rust in Linux will die, either because Linus will get sick of the drama or the Rust evangelists will bail due to the slow progress and constantly having to play catch-up with the C codebase.
If it's going to "take decades", it would be far simpler, quicker, easier to just start reimplementing in Rust, using Linux as a a template.
Translation from one language to another is relatively simple compared to the "working out what I need to do" part of programming.
This effort would be far, far better for the Rust community, because they wouldn't need to compromise to satisfy the legacy code and it would likely help drive language standardisation (something that is yet to happen, BTW).
Starting again is very, very, very rarely the right thing, but sometimes, it is. This is clearly a "sometimes".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gerooq Yeah, that's the thing - when you're young and don't know anything, it's a fantastic way to learn about computers, operating systems etc.
But once you get into the real world, where you're trying to solve real problems and actually innovate and make lives better (or just feed your family), having to mess-around restarting NetworkManager for the Nth time, is just annoying.
And before anyone pipes-up, I don't have time or patience for the political BS. Managing network devices and network configuration is not a novel problem. It may have nuances, but it JustWorks™ on Windows, rarely needing manual intervention.
If you cannot get the basics right, you aren't worthy of my attention. That's reality.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I strongly disagree with almost everything you've said, because, fundamentally, you fail to display an appreciation that the "simplicity" that "both sides" engage in comes from a recognition of the fundamental nature of the issue.
On one side, you have Platonists/Hegelianists/Marxists who explicitly reject the very concept of empiricism; of "fundamental truth".
On the other side, there is "everyone else".
In this "debate", one either believes that truth exists, or one does not. If you believe truth exists and apply anything even approaching an "intellectually honest investigation" to the issue, then there can be only one conclusion: men and women are fundamentally different; we are a sexually dimorphic species and that the genetic and congenital aberrations are nothing but a distraction when dealing with the fundamental truth of the matter.
Or, in other words, if you have XY chromosomes, you are male and will become a man and if you have XX chromosomes you are female and will become a woman and that one cannot change this fundamental truth of *reality*, no matter how hard you try (or how many people you mutilate and kill along the way...)
If you have a physiological variance to these norms, I feel empathy for you (what, you think I'm "physically perfect"?), but there is nothing that can change the fact that you are NOT normal and you will have to navigate the grey space between this binary, but that is YOUR problem, not mine and there is no obligation on me to deny reality in order to reinforce any delusions you may hold.
(EDIT: Fix dyslexic slip.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Whitespace indentation"
What, something that every professional developer worth his salt does as a matter of course?
Are you serious?
Coming from C, the asymmetry (no closing braces) took me about 2 weeks to get over, so I have sympathy for those who struggle with this, but my god! Complaining about indentation? Have you ever worked with other programmers?!?!
Static typing can be useful, but this argument is a crutch for poor documentation and communication between teams.
Also, if module boundaries are pain points, then simply treat arguments as "user input" and act accordingly.
Even when you have static typing, you still need null reference checks and complex inputs will need validating anyway, regardless of typing, so, where's the difference?
3
-
3
-
@occamsrazor1285 I think you're flat wrong on this - yes, that's one of the premise of The Expanse, but the basic economics of it JustDontWork™.
When you have a democracy where people can just vote themselves More Stuff you end up with government printing money to pay for it all, resulting in hyper-inflation and economic collapse, political unrest etc.
And if there is a society that DOES have UBI and one that DOESN'T, the difference in incentive structures will result in the non-UBI society out-pacing the UBI in terms of quality of life and technology.
This is because UBI feeds the worst traits in people - you're not going to fight when can just sit at home and play video games, whereas a non-UBI society, with a more sink-or-swim attitude will create people more used to struggle, better suited to hardship.
You think it is a coincidence that Mars was technologically WAY ahead of Earth in the Expanse, with Earth barely being able to hold it's own, due to its sheer size?
This video is the worst kind of recycled, low-information, narrow-thinking, low IQ shit that has been proven wrong by history again and again and again.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TARJohnson1979 With Tom on this. History only tells you how you got here, not how to go forwards (though, it may offer hints).
People put too much stock in "history". I've had devs reject things like whitespace/line ending normalisation because it "breaks the history". Their logic being "we should perpetuate BAD, unreadable code, for the sake of history". (Also, let me introduce you to the diff option that ignores whitespace differences...)
Ironically, the argument being put forward is both "history is important" and "history isn't important"; you want a *good*, "clean" history, but you ALSO think squash commits - that erase history - are a GoodThing™.
My sense is that, in practice, there are 2 things that really matter: diffs between points-in-time (one of the few strengths of Clear Case IIRC) and blame... Sorry "annotation".
In short, I think people worry too much about this aspect of VCS. Write your code, make sensible commit comments and let the weirdos (like me) sweat over the minutiae of VCS management 😂
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sleepyproduction7166 Yeah, but junkies don't count mate. Your experience doesn't count, because you'll always be a junkie to them, plus, what about "muh liberties" 🤷♂️🤦♂️
Almost everyone who promotes "legalise all drugs" are deeply ignorant people who are impervious to reason. Or worse, are authoritarians who's only care is power and control at any price...
You can refer to the Opium Wars as undeniable, empirical proof of what happens when "all drugs are legal", but it won't help, because they just don't care about other people's opinions.
And as for "the war on drugs", well, it would be nice if it were actually treated as a war - with the whole of society focused and dedicated to winning; with people/government addressing the issues that lead to people using drugs, while being utterly uncompromising with the eradication of the supply.
But hey! We can't have that , because that would mean addressing issues like poverty and education. And we can't have the plebs being educated and earning decent wages now, can we?
2
-
@DavidL1986 There was a strong element of misogyny, but the main reason is that it was a struggle between Parliament and the unions.
The unions believed it was acceptable to hold the country to ransome in order to ensure they got paid, when the people who actually paid taxes had to suffer. (No, if you are paid by the state, you're not paying taxes, you're just getting paid less than they say their paying you and they call it "taxes".)
Thatcher was elected on the back of the Winter of Discontent, when even the grave diggers were on strike. IIRC 1979 was the biggest landslide to that point - in general, people were fed-up with the unions being on strike constantly and the disruption that caused.
Thatcher believed that it was wrong that the heads of the unions and their member - a small set of people - should be able to override Parliament (basically, if you weren't in the union, you vote doesn't count...)
The unions generated the hate because they didn't want to lose power. It is EXACTLY the same as Deep State vs. Trump.
The irony is that the strikes ensured MORE pits closed than originally planned, weakening the unions further.
Unions had their place, but by the 70s, they'd become thoroughly corrupt and were destroying the economy.
Britain was still paying off the WW2 debt, which is why we "never got rich" from North Sea oil, unlike Norway (who didn't have any war debt, because they were conquered). The coal industry had basically become a giant welfare scheme that was really expensive. I believe the impact was overstated, for propaganda purposes, but still, it's very similar to the immigrant situation - one group of people get "4 star hotels on the tax payer", while the actual tax payer is struggling to make ends meet.
At the time, "printing money" was not an accepted solution, because people still had living memory of what happened to Germany when they took that approach... See 'Weimar "Economics" '.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danthetube5707 *Potential long term effects.
I'm sorry, but have you seen what cobalt mining does to the environment?
Also, can you explain the Medieval Warm Period? If you can't, why should I listen to you predictions about the "damage" CO2 may do?
We have 20 years of data that shows the temperature predictions were WAY out - reality came out towards the bottom-end of predictions consistently. This is far worse than it sounds, because the further you are from the centre, the "less likely" a predicted outcome is.
This means that the predictions were, basically, lucky that they temperature was in the predicted range at all.
You want me to take these people seriously? You want me to take people who take the most extreme predictions and then say "we need to fundamentally change the way we live", empoverishing everyone I know and committing mass-murder on a scale that would make Stalin and Mao blush?
No, no thanks. Call me old fashioned, but eating babies is wrong. 🤷
(I am a computer scientist so have some genuine expertise in how modelling is performed - but you're still going to attack me, because I'm not the "right kind" of expert, amirite? 🤔)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Baamthe25th OMG, THIS!
I'm almost sad I missed this when you originally posted 😒... But I get to enjoy it today, when I need reminding that, for all the stupid in the world, there's at least one other human who gets it! 😂
Those who understand, know that there is no "centre"; it's literally like the UK parliament - you're either on one side, or you're the opposition (enemy, who must be destroyed...)
When these "enlightened centrists" say Socialism, they really mean "social conscience" (NOT social consciousness!!!).
And by that, I mean, they recognise that they are not alone, that there are other people and that human nature means that some can be taken advantage of by the powerful and/or unscrupulous. Most of these "enlightened centrists", don't understand that Socialism rejects the very IDEA of human nature, so describing how they feel as "Socialism" is, well, just WRONG.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikebarnacle1469 Agreed, just changing numbers isn't that hard.
The beta thing is optional and it entirely depends on your needs and approach; SemVer doesn't mandate this, it merely provides a reasonable mechanism for expressing what you're doing.
To be clear, a lot of what I was saying really has nothing to do with SemVer and everything to do with good development practice. It's less baking recipe and more landing checklist:
* Set flaps
* Lower landing gear
Set flaps to what? Well, that depends on the aircraft, weather, airport altitude, weight, etc.
How do you lower the landing gear? You're supposed to know that already, this is just a reminder to make sure you've done it.
Same with SemVer; SemVer is only prescriptive about the way numbers are interpreted. Everything else is just a "hey, have you thought about this?" or "Have you considered...", because you're probably going to upset your users if you haven't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's about attitude. The postmodern "philosophical" view is that "there's no such thing as tonal music" and that "all music is of equal value".
For a "normal" person (which you sound like), this doesn't make sense, at which point, a postmodernist would say "that's because you're not smart enough to understand", when the truth (which they conveniently deny the existence of), is that you ARE right; it doesn't make sense.
Rick's point here is that it is possible - necessary, even - to create new, innovative music through understanding the orthodoxy and using, even selectively.
To a postmodernist, learning about the orthodoxy is bad as it "taints" your thinking; you should just mash the keys randomly and call the result music, because you feel it is music.
Again, to anyone with any sense, this is ludicrous, but that's really what they claim to believe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Eheroduelist It's complicated. Boris has a common touch and Brexit Party is a real threat to Labour.
There are no guarantees and certainly, if Boris betrays, the Conservative party is DONE, but I don't think that will happen.
Boris is acting like a strong leader. For too long we've had weak leaders - politicians afraid to do what is "right" because it will upset people. People will vote for Boris on this basis, BUT it will be the last chance.
Boris is quite literally our last, best hope for peace. We either get a new Conservative government AND Boris delivers a no-deal, or a deal that's obviously, unambiguously good (which I would rate as near impossible, due to EU politicians not knowing what's good for them...). We get that or we're looking at 1930's Germany; Civil War if we're lucky, an extremist government (left, right, up or down...) if we're not.
THAT is how fundamentally broken the system is right now...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@helenwebster537 Depends. In what circumstances had my family member been shot? We're they chasing after a kid who was lawfully carrying a gun? Or were they murdered in cold blood in a random act of violence?
But then none of these people were related, well, except that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them had been convicted of a serious crime.
Do I have access to a gun? Is it to-hand? I've chased after a street mugger, but frankly, I'm unlikely to try to chase a gunman unless I also have a gun, because, well, that would just be DUMB.
Real life isn't like TV or video games. All it takes is one shot, one knock on the head. Engaging in violence - ANY violence - is to INVITE death to cast an eye in your direction.
Taking on a guy with a gun unarmed, well, that's practically inviting the Reaper round for tea.
Men who have seen war hate violence. They will use it when they have to, because they understand why it is necessary, but they don't enjoy it and they don't do it lightly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Is your boss a software engineer or a "software manager"? My guess would be the latter. (Though, not all "software engineers" seem able to comprehend the value of TDD...)
This is an endemic problem in the industry, sadly, as it's really difficult to get someone to understand the value of things like TDD if they've never had to fix code someone else wrote.
(One of the most overlooked benefits of unit testing/TDD is that when you have some it makes identify and verifying bug fixes much quicker...)
If you don't get a positive response, I'd recommend not over-egging, just try to do your best to implement best practice in the tasks you're given. This can be extremely tricky, so you may need to compromise until you've got enough experience to move-on.
One thing is for certain: in your next interview, ask if they do TDD. If the answer is "no", then your answer should be "thanks, but no thanks" - because you'll only be dissatisfied in the role anyway.
This is the hardest thing to do when you're starting out, but trust me, the people you WANT to work for are the people who will appreciate that question/response.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@isodoubIet Yeah that's a hard "you clearly have no idea what you're talking about" from me.
Once you're on you 5 or 6 language and you read about Guido's motivation and early design approach/decisions, you will see the simple reality: Python is Best in Class.
I sat down with Perl, Python and Ruby 10 years ago and did an honest, no BS comparison based on capabilities, fundamentals and project management and Python was a clear winner.
Coming from C/C++/Java with some Bash, Awk, Perl and VBA sprinkled-in, Python was a breath of fresh air! Clean, consistent syntax, strong emphasis on good program structure (exceptions for EVERYTHING) and a clearly defined "default path" for doing common jobs (with "if you really need to, here's some alternatives") - I shudder at the memory of Perl class initialisation... All 3 different ways it could be done (and NEEDED to be, depending upon circumstances!)
Perl is now a completely dead language (largely due to the Perl 6 fiasco), Ruby is becoming more and more niche (I would contend as much for the self-superior attitude of the "Ruby Community" as fundamentally being little more than a "cleaned-up Perl") and Python has only grown in popularity, becoming THE language in emerging fields while competing with Java as the introductory language of choice.
So, while Python ain't perfect... it's pretty damned close!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sorry, but for me, it was terrible.
There were soooo many unnecessary historical inaccuracies and mis-characterisations.
It was not HALF as hard-bitten as it should have been (except the bunker scene... Until they went all Raiders of the Lost Ark...) - you could tell it was written by a women.
The fact that they NEVER ONCE called "runner coming through" in the ENTIRE FILM did it for me. Even as a civilian and casual historian, I know that this was part-and-parcel of life on the front lines - there was understanding that impeding a runner (someone carrying information or orders) was a serious offence. All they had to do was to shout this and the mass of troops in front of them would have parted like the Red Sea!!!
Your description of Schofield as "gaining motivation toward the end" is just naïve. He would have done the job because he knew that the alternative was a firing squad. Either that or he would have tried to desert...
There was SOOOOOO much lingering! I get that some of this was for audience benefit... But there was just no sense of urgency - either for the mission, or the simple "the longer we're in the open, the less chance we have of surviving". They would have 2 modes: slow and cautious when they perceive a threat and OMG let's get there as fast as we can when there's no one around.
There WAS unnecessary "representation".
Sikhs fought in entirely segregated units - the idea of a single random Sikh in the infamous truck scene... No. Just, no. They could have replaced the "Yorks" (and their GOD AWFUL OFFICER, who should have been sent home in disgrace!) with a Sikh Batallion. But nooooo, best you get is one TOKEN.
NO black enlisted men were ALLOWED weapons, so you would NOT see one in an infantry unit (as at the end of the film).
There was a black (mixed race) officer who served, but black enlisted men were restricted to fetch-and-carry work, usually well behind the lines. If all the stretcher-bearers and orderlies in the aid station at the end had been black... It may not have been 100% historical (not sure), but it would have been representative... Again, best you get is one TOKEN.
Fuck Mendes and Hollywood tokenism.
The ONLY good thing about this film is the cinematography, otherwise, 1917 is an awful film, far too full of sentimentality.
Black Adder Goes Forth was more authentic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RicoImp3 Well, you're presenting a childish view that things like "freedom" aren't important.
Freedom is extremely important to some people. So much so, that they have risked death - or died - to achieve it for themselves and/or their loved ones.
And by childish, I really mean completely self-centred and ignorant, but I was pretending to be nice...
I, like most others who talk about freedom of choice, are able to comprehend that there's more to life than material things; more to living than continuing to respire.
They, like me, understand that EVERYTHING is a compromise, every decision cuts-off some possibility... Or brings others closer.
We, collectively, understand the Truth of history; that there are people whose ONLY motivation is the accumulation and exercise of power. We understand that Rights are rarely, if ever, swept-away overnight, instead, they are chipped-away, bit by bit.
Sometimes, the cost of defending these rights is so high, that fighting is replaced with wishful thinking; "maybe they'll see sense and end this pointless charade".
Sometimes, the tyrants push up against a line that educated people know is a tipping-point, a line that, once crossed, cannot be un-crossed without violence and bloodshed.
The medical tyranny of forced vaccination and vaccine passports is one such line.
If you do not understand or believe this, I would strongly suggest you discover "The Nuremberg Principles" and the reasons why they were codified.
You may be happy being a slave, but many of us are not. We will not submit to tyranny; we will not sacrifice the freedom of our children for the sake of our own convenience. This is the Truth. If you're not happy with this, then I suggest you leave the organising of this world to better men and women who actually care.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@iansneddon2956 Hey, no problem!
I'm sorry if I was gave the impression that I was completely dismissing the naval disparity - after all, a single cruiser would be worth 2 or 3 destroyers once it was in amongst the transports...
I was also being generous, with respect to the Luftwaffe; that even if the skies were completely clear of RAF AND the Stukas were effective, the volume of damage that the Home Fleet could do, even if it were a "one off suicide run" would be so enormous that there would be no way the Germans could sustain the invasion. I was trying to emphasise, to the uninitiated, just how brutal such a mass fleet battle would be, relative to the "sedate" and "gentlemanly" examples of WW2 naval warfare we would typically think of, such as River Plate.
To be fair, I need to plead ignorance to that exercise - I've heard that it happened, but none of the details.
Did the gamers look at the long-term consequences of a failed invasion, from a broader strategic perspective, such as North Africa / US entry to the war / Barbarossa?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fionnmoules7620 The "Irish" are formed from 2 distinct ethnic groups; the Scots and Irish. The Scots, historically (pre-6th Century) originated from an area roughly analogous to modern Ulster. During the 6th-11th Century, the Scots expanded their kingdom across the Irish Sea, first into Argyle, then to the whole of what is now modern-day Scotland, conquering, displacing and subsuming the native Picts.
There was a significant "reverse migration" of Scots during the 17th Century.
The Provisional IRA IS (was?; it's not clear whether it is fully disbanded at this point...) a Marxist organisation. One only need to look at Sin Fein and their policies to understand this.
The Troubles was a Communist insurgency that exploited the divisions in the North (along ethnic/religious lines). I'm sorry if this burst your bubble in so far as the lies you've been told, but facts are facts.
Also, like "India", a "United Ireland" was, fundamentally, a creation of the English.
Reading a good book or two on the ACTUAL history of Ireland, not just the Sin Fein or English propaganda will help clear things up for you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andreipangi Opinions can be objectively wrong. You can have the opinion that Pi is 3, which would be wrong.
This is another example.
Again, it's not the C language that is the "protocol", it's the C function call interface and the syscall interface. As this varies by OS and C implementation, your assertion that other languages/runtimes would be "wrong" to implement their own syscall interface(s) is simply a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the subject.
Your assertion that it would "add a lot of bugs" is the silliest argument - all software is buggy, therefore, never write anything new, because it will have bugs. 🤦♂️
Breaking assumptions is precisely the point - people want to be able to write "pure Rust", rather than having to "switch to C".
Inter-code communication is precisely the issue and the desire to not have to do it. Again, this is all showing confusion about the topic and a general lack of understanding of what the real problems are.
C is a language specification that gives broad latitude to implementors to make their own decisions, based on their needs and the needs of the OS and hardware they're running on.
Failing to understand the distinction between the C language specification, a particular C implementation and the OS syscall interface (which can be accessed directly using assembly language), is the problem the OP has.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TGuard00014 ??? But they didn't decide "who gets to live or die" - he was already dead.
Using this example to tackle the wider issue is just dumb, if you're on the "parental choice" side, because the science is pretty definitive on detecting brain activity - which you'd know if you were a medical doctor.
Arguing about "life and death" of someone who is already dead (medically and morally - the Catholic church doesn't hold that this boy was still alive, despite what the communist in the papacy may say).
Okay, let's take your position that the doctors are not as deeply impacted by the situation as the parents. This is precisely why the decision was "taken away" from the parents - they were not able to make rational decisions.
Sorry, but in the UK, if you're deemed mentally unfit, you lose your ability to make decisions. This is managed through the courts - as this case was - it's not arbitrary or done without review.
The doctors did NOT "decide to kill this boy", they petitioned the court to "decide to withdraw the artificial life support that gave the misleading simulation of life".
Doctors make mistakes and maybe the courts have a tendency to be too deferential to doctors and there maybe needs to be a correction on that part. But in this case, it seems pretty clear that the boy was dead and the parents refused to accept the reality. As a medical professional, the /standard/ approach is that one does NOT reinforce a delusion, as this is considered unethical (harmful).
The emotive language about "choosing life and death" is neither appropriate, nor useful.
Given a choice between a government choosing whether I live or die or a private corporation (as COMMONLY happens in the US), I'll choose government, thanks, because at least my family gets a chance to punish them when I'm gone...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The scandal is the blasé nature of the response.
People, in general, do not appreciate how attacks work. It's not about one vulnerability that unlocks everything, it's about chaining vulnerabilities - getting onto the network via some neglected, "unimportant" device, then leveraging that to gain further, deeper access.
Knowing that all you need to do is find any UNIX system on a network and you've got root access? It's pure gold.
Vulnerabilities will happen, yes, and we shouldn't be jumping off bridges everytime we find one... But there needs to be an appropriate response.
An unauthenticated, network-accessable RCE in software, is the security equivalent of a doctor killing a patient and should be treated as seriously.
If not, you're simply in the wrong business and things will never get any better.
2
-
2
-
When speaking English, please do not use the phrase "gender assigned at birth".
This phrase was created by political ideologues. The correct phrase would be "assessed at birth" or "described at birth".
The English language is a DESCRIPTIVE language, NOT prescriptive. The people who assert the opposite are Marxists or support related and/or derived philosophies.
The lie perpetrated by these ideologues is that there is some difference between "sex" and "gender". These are synonyms; gender was used as an alternative so that the word "sex" does not need to be used in "polite conversation" (as silly as that may sound, but hey, we're British!). It is sophistry at its "finest".
Whether you intend it or not, by using this language, you implicitly support the misogynistic, mass-murdering philosophy and the position that "there is no difference between men and women" or that "trans women are women".
In all seriousness, there is VERY little difference between the the "gender ideologues" and the mid-century Germans. Yes, I went there, not through insensitivity, but through genuine concern - you have always given the impression that you try to uphold the best principles of the scientific method and I want to give you to be clear on the terms of engagement.
I'm sorry, but with respect to this issue there are, precisely, 2 sides: empiricism or ideology. It is NOT possible to "straddle the fence". You will be denounced by one side or the other for not picking a side; by the Left (evil gender ideologues) for "being a bigot" and everyone else for being an intellectual coward.
I'm almost sorry that you made this video... While I do not doubt your sincerity, I do question your appreciation of the minefield you just walked into. 🙁
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jeromejerome2492 You want to make the claim "I understand the climate", yet can't explain the MWP?
Your theory must match all data or it's just cherry picking.
If your models aren't making accurate predictions, why are you claiming they "prove" anything?
So, you "turn off" GHG emissions. Okay, but how do you know that you haven't over-weighted their influence? (Hint: they already realised this, more than once.)
You test your model against ALL historical data, including the MWP.
What if we're experiencing another MWP that just happens to coincide with changes in atmospheric gas composition? I can't be sure of this unless and until you can adequately explain the MWP in the first place, can I?
How do you know those changes (overall) are not effect, rather than cause? (I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but it's on you to prove your assertions, not just say "well we have been burning hydrocarbons"; that's a clue, not proof.)
Science is hard. Suck it up and show me the proof.
(FYI/FWIW: I'm more skeptical of the "science" behind ACC now than I was 20 years ago.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Feolips Yes, H2 storage IS harder than an oil rig!!!
The "better energy density" of H2 comes at a massive cost - it has to be in liquid form, which takes a massive amount of energy.
There are also a number of material problems associated with hydrogen, because it can pass through materials.
Here's a thought:
Instead of breaking-down natural hydrocarbons to free the hydrogen (and do, what, with the carbon?), how about creating synthetic hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 which would, at worst, maintain current CO2 levels?
I understand why you think H2 is a good idea, but it isn't. Synthetic hydrocarbons are EASILY a better, cheaper solution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You completely missed my point. Well done you.
Also, you're such a Lefty, you can't even say "I'm right-wing" correctly... And only Lefties use the term right-wing.
Oh, yes, everything if Fascist, racist, etc., etc.
Dominic Cummings has no power, he is simply being portrayed as a villain because of the Left-wing media who can't get over the fact that we voted to leave and that they no longer get to control the narrative.
World is changing, Communism is being repudiated, the Nation State is going to survive for another generation of two. Suck it up.
And if you don't like it, you can always leave (unlike the people of East Germany, who would be shot BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT of they tried to).
1
-
@Stevebarker66 Okay, let's be clear:
This "Dominic Cummings is The Devil and is running the government" line is Communist (Labour Party) propaganda. If you spout Communist propaganda at me, I'm going to treat you like a Communist, because I remember people getting shot trying to escape Communism. I remember the Killing Fields of Cambodia. I remember the orphanages of Romania.
Because, if the Communists win, I and people like me will be the first against the wall.
So yeah, I'll ad hominem ALL DAY, because Communists want to murder me. And if you think I'm being ridiculous or hyperbolic, then you don't know anything about the history of Communism (or you willingly choose to ignore it).
And my point about Alistair Campbell was that, while Tony Blair was PM, it was a widely held view that Campbell was a person not to be crossed, who would (and did) ruin careers, especially in the media and no doubt in the civil service too. He was never elected, so why should he have that power? There is no difference between Alistair Campbell then and Dominic Cummings now. It's the nature of modern politics, as defined by Tony Blair and the Labour Party. Again, it's Labour propaganda that comes from deep-seated hypocrisy, so I have no time for it.
But hey, maybe I'm just old and remember a time before 1997...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@helmutsilver5006 Wow, that escalated quickly.
As someone who voted to leave the EU, I'd like to give you a heartfelt "fuck you". It was nothing to do with Russia, that's JustAnotherCope™ from the losers who are sad their totalitarian "New Roman Empire", sorry "Union" is collapsing.
The only people creating division in the US are the so-called Democrats, who are the ones pushing Russia as a villain and the overreaction to COVID.
Truth is freedom and Dr. Campbell is on the side of freedom.
Russia is only a threat because European nations are run by feckless and corrupt people who spend their people's money on vanity projects and feathering their own nests instead of maintaining military capabilities that would hold Russia at bay.
Russia only has 150 million people. German alone has 85 million AND has a larger economy (purchasing power parity). The Germans could, quite comfortably, have a sufficiently large military to ensure Russia would not be a threat and yet, they don't.
This is all before one considers France, Austria, Poland and all the other smaller European nations whose interests are against a dominant Russia.
I'll be the first to point out many of the hangovers from the Cold War, but kinetic conflict with Russia is way down the list.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samjohns8381 If you know what the code should do, you can describe the test.
If you don't/can't, your requirements are not described sufficiently, so what you're doing is requirements discovery/elaboration.
What and how are totally different things.
You just don't think of it this way, because you were not trained properly (this isn't a slight, just an autistic statement of fact; very few people are taught properly).
I'm not sure Dave says so explicitly, but to me, this is actually the key benefit of BDD/TDD. Done right, you cannot write any code - waste any time - if you don't have your requirement nailed down.
This doesn't mean full waterfall, it means that you understand what you're trying to achieve with the code you're about to write. It should make you also answer difficult questions ahead of time, such as "how do I handle errors", something in my experience, people tend to leave until it's a problem... But when it's a problem...
I'm a fan of "document first", because this makes you think about how people will use the code. Which should help stop you from writing hard to use APIs.
1
-
1
-
Hi, your use of the diagram is erroneous.
You claim that, according to the STL ship, the notification arrived before the notification was sent. This is a misunderstanding of time dilation.
At relativistic speeds, time slows for the ship, but not for the "rest of the universe". While the occupants of the ship travelling close to the speed of light may have only aged a few days or weeks, the time would have passed outside their frame by years, something that would not be apparent unless and until they "synchronise" their frame.
The CHILDS film Flight of the Navigator explains this perfectly.
The fundamental issue is perception - the perception of a ship travelling at relativistic speeds is that time slows, but the reality is that it's going along "normally" for everyone else.
In your example, causality is only broken iff the STL ship were able to transmit a message back to Earth before the message were sent.
Your diagram demonstrates that this is not possible, as the message returned at the speed it was received would not reach Earth until after it was sent.
These diagrams are interesting, but they can be misleading. I never understood why until now.
Regardless of any line drawn in your example, the only way to break causality is to transmit backwards in time, so that the response to a message is received before the original is transmitted.
I know that there's actually a mathematical proof of what I'm saying in the Lorentz equations (for translating a spacetime co-ordinate from one frame of reference to another), but I haven't gotten around to demonstrating it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SDK2006b Burning fossil fuels has created the society we live in today, where 98% of children make it to 15 - up from 50% in 1920.
I can communicate with anyone pretty much anywhere on the planet.
I can get access to foods that people didn't know existed just 100 years ago.
Fewer people are in abject poverty now, in relative (and approaching absolute...) than at any time in recorder history.
Fossil fuels (complex hydrocarbons) are an excellent way to store energy, second only to nuclear decay.
You may be happy being a subsistence farmer, but, call me a radical, I don't want that for my children, f you very much.
That said, it also means that I'm exposed to insufferable morons like you, spouting ideas that are not even close to being half-baked, so maybe going back to subsistence farming wouldn't be such a bad thing? 🤔
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SDK2006b "Gone forever."
Yeah, just as I thought: you don't understand how things work, I'll explain.
CO2 is used by plants, in combination with sunlight and water, to grow. This growth consists of complex hydrocarbons.
When plants die, more plants grow on top, over millions of years, this growth results in plants at the bottom being crushed and forming what we call "fossil fuels".
Humans dig up these "fossil fuels" because they are a useful store of energy and burn them, combining the stored carbon with oxygen to create CO2, which plants, alive today, can use as food.
There's also this "thing" called the "Sebatier Process", which can take water and atmospheric CO2 and create complex hydrocarbons (methane).
As you can see - consistent with the laws of thermodynamics - once burned, fossil fuels are not "gone for ever", their constitution parts are made available in a different form, a form that plants REALLY like.
You don't have a thing against plants, do you? I mean, you don't want to commit some sort of "pplant genocide", do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewp.weiner5708 Well, no, as an empiricist, all knowledge is useful... Even if that's "the only thing this is good for is as an example of what NOT to do", a value judgement which postmodernism strictly prohibits.
No, sorry, but postmodernism has no meaningful, practical purpose for people in their everyday lives, unlike empiricism, which ACTUALLY repudiates racism and delivers useful things like computers and the Internet.
If you think empiricism DOESN'T repudiate racism, you're either a racist or doing it wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro No, I just understand it better than you do.
But of course, you won't believe that, because you have AllTheAnswers™... Straight from the holy scriptures, through the mouths of the prophets...
The rejection of the idea of human nature is just one (important) aspect of Socialism, but as we know, if you're not a TRUE Socialist, if you don't adhere to ALL of Socialism, then you're not a Socialist at all.
Not my logic, theirs. It sounds like a straw-man, but that's just an indication of how pathetic/childish the "thought" behind it is.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro ROFL! You're here, defending Communism, which has directly killed, in PEACETIME, 50-200 million people... And we don't know the numbers because Communists have such little respect for human life, they don't even bother to count the bodies!
You're here, defending Communism and you call ME a fanatic?
You are soooo pathetic, I have nothing but pity for you. I wouldn't even waste my time trying to re-educate you. Hell, I'd even have to debate whether you were worthy of the price of the bullet.
It's ironic that Communists are all atheists, because only Jesus could love you.
LOL, maybe that's why you're all such miserable and pathetic people?
Go with God. Jesus loves you, especially as you don't deserve it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elimgarak3597 I use both day-to-day.
I have different problems on each OS, but I still have problems.
Just throwing back the "fanatic" claim isn't very good.
It's not "gatekeeping", it's a fact.
Why isn't "everything" supported on Linux?
Why isn't "everything" supported on Windows? (There's plenty of applications that require Linux or a Unix OS...)
Crap is crap. There's plenty of crap in Windows - NTFS is early-90s tech and should have been replaced 15 years ago. It literally only "survives" because of SSDs.
But then, there's plenty of crap in Linux OSes too (like systemd), it's just that people gloss over it because it's free. You get what you pay for.
I'm tired of having 20-somethings coming and telling me "we should switch to Linux" and me having to explain to them, at great length and in detail, that just introducing Linux is a non-trivial task, when you have anything more than a few users, let alone a few thousand... But yeah, I'm just a fanatic who doesn't know anything about computers and what it takes to deliver and maintain a service to people who don't CARE about the difference between Linux and Windows LET ALONE have the patience to find out...
Literally, if you're in your early 20s, I may have been using Linux longer than you've been alive. (My first foray was Red Hat 5.2. Not RHEL 5. Red Hat 5.2, where one had a choice between 1.x and 2.x Kernels. I am that old.)
But like you say, I am, clearly, just a fanatic 🤷♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JSA 68 sigh This is just all propaganda.
Do you really think people will support a return to the Troubles?
Your Isle of Wight comment just shows that you're a grief-stricken remainer who isn't willing to come to terms with the fact that you didn't get the result you wanted.
It also shows your ignorance because, if anything, there would be a North/South split... That and it would be the remainers who would be "banished", because they are the minority.
But then, you don't believe in democracy, right? So what does it matter to you, right?
And before you say "people have changed their minds", THAT is EXACTLY the point.
We had plenty of time to discuss the issues. There was propaganda from both sides. People had their say. You either accept the result or you are, explicitly, saying you no longer want to live in a democracy, because you have withdrawn your consent to abide by the will of the majority and are now simply looking for excuses to undo the result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sim-q9t You seem to have drunk the Cool Aid that there's something magical and mysterious about universities.
I'm sorry to disabuse you, but they are, simply, businesses that are in the business of providing education.
If you cannot see/accept this reality, then you do not understand the nature of the problem and consequently, your contributions can, by this fact, be of limited value.
If you feel demeaned by my comments, that's on you, I am simply stating what I have come to understand to be objective reality. The very fact that you believe this to be a bold claim is proof that you have swallowed the propaganda put out by the universities.
You may protest that this is a tautological claim, but given my first "claim", it is self-evidently true that the second predicate follows from the first, given the language that you have used.
The universities are businesses, selling a bad product for at an inflated price. Like all businesses that do this, they should fail and should be allowed to fail. The market will see this and react accordingly, with the "well-run" businesses reacting quickly-enough to survive.
Government intervention, in this case, is the problem, not the solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting take - the film is "nothing like the book" it's based on, but it's nice to see a review that just judges the film as it is.
There are a few points though - there is a massive dissonance between the Socialist aesthetic and the principles the society operates on. At the start of the film, it's made clear that voting is the exercise of power - the use of force - and therefore should be exercised with care. Consequently, the right to vote needs to be earned "because something given has no value".
This philosophy is lifted from the book, which is a kind of political manifesto; a critique of early post-war society where accountability are responsibility are in increasingly short supply - a trend that has clearly continued...
And while "Service guarantees citizenship" is a catchy slogan, the truth of the society is that it's extremely high on accountability - Jonny causes the death of someone for whom he is responsible, therefore, he is punished, publicly. When the attack on Klandathu fails, the Sky Marshall resigns.
If you haven't already, checkout Sargon's video on the "Philosophy of Starship Troopers". Dunno if it's still on YouTube, so you may need to look to alternative hosting sites to find it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alanpartridge2140 Given that the election is aimed at stopping the imposition of the law (using EMERGENCY legislation, which is only ever passed by concensus, but is now being passed by simple majority - and the Left have the stones to call Boris a tyrant!) which would make it illegal to leave the EU 'without a deal', he would HAVE to go to the Queen immediately.
Once he goes to the Queen, the timetable is FIXED and there's no way to change it. Suggesting otherwise it's just plain wrong.
If Boris loses the election Jeremy Corbyn would be PM on 16th, so he could just ASK for an extension.
If Boris wins, he can just use emergency legislation, with a simple majority - after all, the precedent has been set - to undo the no deal bar and just take us out of the EU.
No, this is cowardly hypocrisy, which is ultimately pointless, as it does nothing but undermine the protections built into the system and make us all more vulnerable to tyranny in the future.
Well done to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@millenialboomer8374 Stupid people can't tell whether or not someone knows better than them, so your statement about being a dumbass and YET you are able to see what "smarter" people cannot, is contradictory. Maybe you truly are as dumb as you claim to be!
In the UK, we have LITERALLY had flu seasons where more people died - you only need to go back to the 1990's (though, I expect this is before you were born...) You can lookup these data on the ONS website for free.
So, what we've got is a respiratory illness that's killing almost exclusively old people, many of whom are dying *anyway*, and in LESS numbers than a bad Flu season... And for this, we've completely destroyed the economy of THE ENTIRE WORLD?!?!
We've done nothing for a bunch of old people and we've impoverished 2 or more generations.
Super smart. So big brained.
You may be comfortable now, but you won't be in a few years.
But, yeah, you're just some troll on the Internet who needs to make himself feel better about by calling strangers dumb.
Well done you!
1
-
1
-
Hey Chris, this was AMAZING! Your guest was FANTASTIC and your knowledge and understanding of the subject drew out the absolute best. Candidate for "perfect" interview!
This came into my feed as I'm literally fighting through acute anxiety while trying to complete uni work (taking time out to do a Master's).
It could not, possibly, be more perfectly timed... almost like someone is trying to look after me! 🤔
There's so much here to unpack and I'll need to watch again, but there's a couple of things I can say for certain:
1. Having been through Perfectionism and arrived at Excellencism, I can confirm just how powerful it is. As a direct result of my "neuroticism", I have developed a Professional Superpower - I read manuals - which is crucial in software, where systems (literally) grind to a halt when one has a single space out of place (voice of experience...). It's got to a point now where I know that anyone who accuses me of perfectionism is not my friend - it is an accusation; an attack.
2. The comments about performance/performance anxiety resonated so deeply! In my yoof, I did a bit of am-dram and I've always described that feeling, when you're stood in the wings, about to step onto the stage for the first time as being a mixture of anxiety and excitement; that the first step was preceded by:
"Why are you here, what the fuck are you doing?!?" Followed immediately by a deep breath and "No, you've done the rehearsals, you got this, people are here to be entertained!"
Sitting here, reflecting on this - reframing it - it's a powerful memory; one of my best, one that I'm going to hold onto for confronting my anxiety going forwards.
3. The understanding that "anxiety is rooted in the future" is MIND BLOWING! It's truly Nobel Prize stuff!
Again, going back to my professional life, I can see how the two have interacted and do - to butcher a famous quote: If I can see further than other men, it's because I'm standing, crippled by anxiety.
It's truly a strength and a weakness.
This is not to say that I'm "brilliant" or in anyway perfect, but I have strengths, compared to my peers, that I know are deeply rooted in my anxiety and the "extensive practice considering all possible future outcomes" that I've gained as a result!
I hope anyone who reads this and is struggling as I have can take my experience as inspiration; that - as your guest asserts - one CAN use anxiety to one's advantage and become a successful, respected professional "in spite of" any problems one has - I have. You can too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Legal context:
In the UK "life sentence" means "life on licence", that is, when you are given a life sentence, you will be given a custodial term, after which, you will be released, but you are only "out" because we want to see if you've been rehabilitated.
If you are "out on licence" and break almost any law, you can be "recalled", which could mean ending up serving the rest of your sentance behind bars.
The "whole life term" was introduced around the turn of the millennium, due to public outcry that was basically a result of us no longer having the death penalty.
Some people are saying that she'll be released or that it will be reduced on appeal.
I can assure you that anyone saying this is flat-out wrong.
If there is one thing that you can be sure of, it's that the British public have no mercy for baby murderers ESPECIALLY when they are women.
Ian Bradey and Myra Hindley died behind bars. Beverly Allitt is still behind bars (and is almost certain never to be released, even though, formally, she doesn't have a full-life term IIRC).
This hateful witch will die behind bars or politicians will hang from lamp posts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isodoubIet And any of this is any different from any other language?
A terrible programmer is a terrible programmer, it doesn't matter what language they're using - there is no technological solution to the problem of human nature (well, except Weaponised Ebola, but I digress...)
Any Turing-complete language is inherently able to do things in multiple ways... even "change the value of 3". The difference is whether the language offers an obvious path that is relatively consistent.
You're still to present any reason why people should pick another language over Python or highlighting some inherent flaw in Python that doesn't appear in other languages...
Literally all you've said is "Python bad", without offering a justification or alternative. THAT, my good man, is precisely the reason WHY I said you clearly don't know what you're talking about, but thanks for doubling-down on your pointlessness!
Fanboi, huh? I prefer "experienced software engineer who's written production code in many languages and has a broad and pragmatic appreciation of the issues involved in designing and developing a language and library ecosystem".
But yeah, I guess "fanboi" covers that.
And even if I were "just" a fanboi, well, at least I'm positive about something , unlike you, it would seem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sarahirvine5802 Yes, the "elites" take money from the poor, making it so they feel they can't afford children and then lavish that money on foreigners. You're not going to hear a counter argument from me, only "radical" and "creative" solutions...
The truth is that, except for the VERY rich (maybe 5-10%), no one AT ALL can afford children and yet, they do.
Clearly, if you have no job and no home, having a child is irresponsible... But if you do, are you sure you can't?
I'm not saying you need to have 8 children, but if you're smart enough to operate a phone/computer and leave a coherent argument on a YT vid, then you have what it takes to be a parent. (Yes, this is meant as a compliment.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For me and my brother, it's the executions that cross the line.
If he'd "just shot them" and called the police, even if he'd "setup an ambush", we are of the view that "castle doctrine exists, or it doesn't".
Obviously, if he'd actively induced them, that would be murder, but moving his car, no matter the motive, isn't enough to undermine Castle Doctrine - the precedent it would set is "if you believe people are coming, you lose your right to defend yourself", which would be absurd and thoroughly undermine self-defence.
We'd probably have gone for 2nd degree or diminished responsibility, as he was clearly unhinged, but it was clearly murder.
Either way, this case is a damning indictment of the authorities - we have no doubt they went for 1st degree for this reason; to take the focus away from them and their failings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jerrylove865 Notwithstanding the obvious straw-man argument, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge and understanding of how computer hardware works, the attacks that this technology is intended to defeat and how it is actually implemented.
And actually, verifying the keyboard IS important, as there have been recorded instances of people injecting key loggers into the keyboard at a hardware level.
But, dafuk do I know? 🤷♂️
If you think this doesn't pass the "smell" test, it's because you have zero clue what "good" and "bad" are supposed to smell like.
Asking for a circuit diagram is just a loser move. It's a pathetic attempt to "win" an "argument" by demanding something you know cannot be produced.
Oh, and this isn't an argument. This is someone who actually knows what they're talking about correcting your misconceptions. Deal with it.
I'll repeat: the objective here is to defeat supply chain and firmware-level malware injection attacks by making the operator aware that an attack has taken place and to also make those attacks more difficult.
To defeat this implementation, one would need to replace the CPU, which can be detected by manually confirming the CPU serial number (which is hard coded into the CPU).
If the the verification hardware is on the board, then it could be defeated by modifying the board, as, ultimately, it would be setting a pin out to high or low. Unless, of course, the CPU does a cryptographic verification of some hardware component... Which would require that the key be included in the CPU... Which is precisely the implementation they have 🤦♂️
This implementation, because it verifies the loaded BIOS image cannot be defeated (or would require obscene investment to defeat), because the CPU is doing the verification. Replacing the CPU can be detected by verify the serial number, which is hard-coded into the CPU itself. You would, therefore, need to either modify the CPU or somehow get a new CPU and spoof the serial number. Or, somehow, convince the CPU to load one BIOS image but verify another...
Plus, you probably should verify your HDMI cables, because there's no reason it can't contain a transmitter that is mirroring the output... But of course, you knew that already, didn't you?
And the reason for memory encryption is to ensure that the contents of memory cannot be modified by anything other than the CPU. A modified board could, theoretically, arbitrarily modify memory contents (say, by overwriting the fixed location at which the BIOS is loaded into memory, AFTER the CPU has done verification...)
The bottom line here is that teams of people, who, individually are smarter, better educated and more experienced in defeating hardware-level attacks, than you or I, have put a LOT of time and effort into this design. They neither put in superfluous features, nor left out features that need to be there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jerrylove865 Dude, YOU'RE the one who asked for a circuit diagram! You refuse to engage with what I say and are surprised when I call you disingenuous?
I'm only responding at your level.
I'll say it again, even though you refuse to let it sink in: WHERE the cryptographic verification takes place IS important.
This is basic, basic stuff.
You are proposing that the main board handle verification and then send a signal to the CPU that everything is okay.
This is literally like someone saying they've cleaned the pans so you can start cooking, then you starting to cook without making sure. The pans could be clean, but they might not and whether you notice may be pure luck.
With verification happening on the CPU, this is the equivalent of you checking all the pans are clean and refusing to cook if they're not.
Or put another way: would you trust a site that claimed everything was kosher, without verifying the server certificate?
I went back over your previous arguments, which I have already addressed, but you ignored: this feature can be "defeated" by replacing the CPU, yes, but the fact that the CPU has been replaced is *detectable*, because the vendor keeps a bill of materials of everything that went into the machine, including serial numbers.
The point about memory encryption, which you clearly failed to grasp, is that the verification process either checks then loads into RAM or loads into RAM and then checks. The point here is that this is done by being passed through the memory encryption, so there's "no way" an attacker could use a timing attack to subvert the BIOS image once it's loaded into RAM.
Again, I don't know what more to say. There isn't just one feature that provides "vendor locking"; there are a suit of features, all added AT THE SAME TIME and when one looks at what they do, it's trivial for even someone like me (who hasn't worked in hardware security for over 5 years) to see how they are complementary and interconnected. This is why I raised full-memory encryption.
As to the final paragraph in my previous: as you had already, disingenuously, asked me to produce a circuit diagram, I knew that you would ask me to provide an answer to how I would defeat your hypothetical board-based verification, which we both know would be literally like asking me to tell you how long the imaginary piece of string you're holding is.
Finally, I just wanted to check if you knew who Luke Jennings was. If you knew, then you might have something to say, but you clearly didn't, which proves what I suspected by your words: you don't have anything above a very basic level of understanding of security at either the hardware or software level, let alone how they impact each other.
Stick to YouTube. Taking your "argument" to serious security researchers would get you laughed out of the room.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Selendeki Yeah, well, I dunno, maybe I've been doing a Masters (after 10 years in industry) and had exactly this interaction with some undergrads?
Just maybe.
Mature Devs who are looking for a leg-up on getting started with a new library or whatever, well, that's something else, but why you'd think that I had these people in mind when I wrote what I wrote...
Well...
I'm sorry for not being excruciatingly explicit in every single word and concept I was trying to express, in spite of the context (the video) rendering it unnecessary, well, except for the extremely insecure, I guess. 🤷♂️🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snoopyfod1807 LOL, no, not at all.
Most people have been lied to about Marxism and what it really means. It's a bitter pill to swallow, especially as most of them have anchored their sense of self to the ideology, but that doesn't alter the fact that, for most people, Marxism is a lie - it's not about "power to the people", it's about replacing one set of overlords with another; plebs like you and me will never get a seat at the table (and we'll be lucky not to catch a bullet for "not being Marxist enough").
Like I said, it would be great if caring about and being nice to each other was enough, but it isn't; you ALWAYS get a Stalin or a Mao or Pol Pot or a Hitler who rises to power, with the deaths that follow evil men like night follows day...
The answers are almost never at the extremes - to me, Anarcho Capitalism is JUST as evil as Marxism - yet extreme solutions seem to always be the default position for Marxism/Marxists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also, I'm very leery of modern construction techniques - overuse of concrete, for example.
Victoria Gate (Leeds, England) is a good example. It's all concrete and glass (with tactical red brick so that it fits better with the surrounding red brick and limestone). Externally, it's ugly; when you see the concrete next to the limestone, it just looks cheap.
Internally, the arcade (mall) is awful - the proportions are terrible, with very narrow lanes compared to the height. This is in stark contrast to Victoria Quarter, which has almost perfect proportions.
VQ's main acrade is wide and tall, but actually opens wider at the 1st floor (um, 2nd to US readers...) This creates a wonderful space, which is why it is no surprise that it is so popular.
I'm not saying they should have cloned the Victorian styling of VQ in VG, but they could a taken some hints!!!
1
-
@killator3421 Indeed.
The issue is the distinction between dogmatism and religiosity.
"Modern science" is a system of religious beliefs (have you, personally, verified every observation?) that has its rituals, commandments, sins and priesthood.
The difference between science and traditional religions is that its objective is the persuit of knowledge, whereas traditional religions have the objective of "living a good life".
Adherence to dogma results in people taking a "vaccine" that doesn't meet any of the definitions of the word (well, until they changed the definition, that is...) and social shaming of those who said "wait, this doesn't make sense".
The correlation between those who are religious and those who refused to take unproven (and it turns out, untested) vaccines is very high, apparently.
Both religion and science have their place and the faults of one are the faults of the other, because they both involve people.
1
-
@christinemacdonald3188 ONE, who, no doubt was a Trudeau sopporter?
What about the VIDEO evidence, from MULTIPLE sources, of protesters pro-actively ensuring roads were open for emergency services - including police?
Maybe you're one of those "lock me down harder daddy" types, but comparing the privileged, JSO "protesters", disrupting the lives of working-class people over a hypothetical problem that, the truth of which, will not be revealed for at LEAST another 50 years... Comparing that to people protesting about the violation of their basic civil liberties on the basis of misinformation and lies (which governments now admit were lies and misinformation...) Yeah, that's not a smart comparison at all. 🤷🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheTerminator-2 ROFL. Your comment is funny.
I'm not superior, I just know that "Socialism" has never worked, as anyone who has cared to spend more than a few minutes examining the subject does. Yes, “Socialism”'s got some "nice" ideas, but the reality is that it doesn't account for human nature, so falls apart very quickly as a result.
Funnily enough, Academic Agent did a video on this just the other day: https://youtu.be/pK_CgcHrgNA
Summary: Start with a healthy capitalist economy, take control of the productive industries and replace the key people with political cronies (as opposed to people who know what they are doing).
Massively increase government spending and corruption.
Implement price controls and "land reforms", which lead to a collapse of agricultural output, empty shelves and starvation. (Just like in USSR, China, Zimbabwe).
Implement further controls, usually by force, resulting in hyper-inflation, while blaming external actors for all the countries woes...
He's also done a video on Zimbabwe, which, while not exactly the same, has many common elements.
Finally, the comment about Saudi Arabia pumping oil to break Venezuela is staggeringly ignorant. The Saudis don't give a damn about Venezuela - they care about Iran. The Saudis are and have been for a while, at war with Iran - literally for years in Syria and Yemen. They are using economic warfare as a part of their strategy; they are trying to bankrupt Iran. Saudi Arabia can afford the low oil price, Iran cannot, thanks in large part to US and other international sanctions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This Pope isn't a Catholic.
"If a man will not work, neither shall he eat." Thessalonians 3:10
You CANNOT be a Socialist AND a Christian, they are fundamentally incompatible, as incompatible as being a Muslim and a Christian or being dead and alive at the same time...
UBI is an authoritarian tool, the sole purpose of which is to make people dependant on the State so that those who run the state can have absolute control over people's lives. Because when you rely on someone for food, it's very difficult to oppose what they do...
And if you believe it will make people better-off, I would encourage you to read about the Speenhamland System. "The most effective system of institutionalised pauperism yet devised.".
It SOUNDS nice, but UBI, like the rest of Socialism, is pure, unmitigated evil.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Boomerrage32 Accusations of arrogance - ad-hominem - are typical of those who have lost and in my experience, a favourite of the Real Socialist types.
Isn't it ARROGANT of you to lecture me on Christianity, when you open up with "I've never read the Bible"?
We have different understandings of the word humility. Humility does not mean "never say anything because you may not be correct". It does not mean "allow Communists to take over so they can put you and your family up against a wall, because you would have to be 'mean' to some people to prevent it."
Again, your understanding of words is off, I will be CHARITABLE and assume that English isn't your first language; "Charity" means being generous to those in genuine need. You seem to be confusing it with "being a sucker". These are not the same thing.
And on the actual substance of your argument, what I quote is THE most pertinent passage with respect to UNIVERSAL Basic Income. As we are talking about THE POPE OF ROME, discussion on the basis of scripture IS appropriate, so talk of "cherry picking" from the Bible is, well, a little... off (I will be CHARITABLE and not use stronger words...)
Social Democracy is another Communist lie. You do realise that the Soviet Union was a democracy, right? What you find is that "Social Democracy" tends to lose the "Democracy" part very fast, once the Socialists are in power....
And finally, isn't it UNCHARITABLE - ARROGANT even - of YOU to ASSUME that just because I oppose Communism/Socialism that I am automatically in favour of unrestrained Capitalism?
"Hypocrit! Remove the plank from your own eye, before you demand others remove the splinter from theirs!"
You're either a shitlord, in which case, you did a respectable job, or you're a Socialist, in which case you are, by definition, a liar and a hypocrit (okay, you may just be a "useful idiot"...), so I'm not going to be taking lectures on morality from you, as you'd be perfectly happy to have me executed as a reactionary, because "those who do not support the revolution, oppose the revolution and these reactionary elements must be eliminated", right?
And if you say "I wouldn't do that", then, you're either lying (proving my point...) or you're nOt A rEaL sOcIaLiSt and you'll be up against the wall with me, in which case, Welcome to The Revolution, _comrade_!
Or, maybe you're just an ignorant child who doesn't know how pernicious and awful Real Socialism is, in which case I would say "aw, bless", and point you to the Killing Fields of Cambodia. THAT was unrestrained Real Socialism in action! THAT is what you're REALLY arguing for, even if you don't realise it.
By your own words you have proven yourself everything you accuse me if being. Straight out of the Communist playbook; not very smart.
So, why should ANYONE listen to a word you say? (And for the avoidance of doubt, that was a rhetorical question.)
1
-
@Boomerrage32 At the heart of Christian (Catholic) doctrine is the fact that people are autonomous; that they are responsible for their OWN actions.
This includes and encompasses not only "original sin", but also things like children are not responsible for the actions of their parents; that I am not responsible for what others do UNLESS I have direct power/authority over them and I INSTRUCT them to do something or I am GROSSLY negligent.
Socialism fundamentally rejects this principle. People are not responsible for their own actions; they are judged on the circumstances of their birth - who their parents are, how wealthy/educated they are (or increasingly, their skin colour).
This ALONE makes Christianity and Socialism fundamentally incompatible.
With respect to UBI, it is the UNIVERSAL aspect which is incompatible with Christianity. Being universal, it DENIES individual responsibility - I get the money NO MATTER WHAT. As Paul writes, "if a man will not work, nor shall he eat." While "only" one passage, it is core to Christian (Catholic) teaching - it encompasses and reinforces the fundamental, underlying principle of Christianity; that we are autonomous and we ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OURSELVES; it is a sin (a deadly sin; Sloth), to not work and to demand of others that which we are not willing to do for ourselves. See also, Jesus' comments on hypocrisy.
In your own words "I am not a Socialist", well, I'm afraid that, if you are advocating for UBI, which is, through-and-through a Socialist idea/policy, by DEFINITION, you are a "useful idiot".
"But I'm not advocating for full Socialism, only this one Socialist policy."
Well, if you've been paying attention, you'd realise that there's no such thing, because accepting the PRINCIPLE of UBI means accepting the underlying principles of Socialism - this is not a Slippery Slope argument, it's a "this is an actual cliff" argument. Or, just in case you're not following - if you accept the principle of UBI, you are accepting a fundamental principle which renders all further argument moot - you're saying, "no, people are not responsible for themselves and by extension, they only have what they have because of external circumstances, such as their social status or skin colour". This, in turn, leads to arguments for the "redistribution" (theft) of people's property, which cannot be refuted, because you've already accepted that "these people didn't earn it".
"A little bit of Socialism" is, intellectually, right up there with "being a little bit pregnant."
As I said, Socialism is a pernicious ideology. To be a Socialist, you must NEVER stray from the defined truth of The Party, because The Party is the protector of the revolution and only Reactionaries would ever QUESTION The Party.
In other words, you must say what is POLITICALLY correct, even (especially) if you know it to be untrue. You must LIE. You CANNOT be a Socialist AND tell the empirical truth. This, again, is fundamentally at-odds with Christianity; "thou shalt not bear false witness" is one of the 10 Commandments carried forwards into the Bible.
You may think this is all an inductive leap too far, but, I'm sad to say, it is not. This is why Socialists are so anti-Christian.
As to my comments on being executed, well, if you knew anything of the history of Socialism, you would know it's not an exaggeration - one only need look to what happened to the Chinese doctors who tried to warn the world at the start of the COVID outbreak. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. IS. DEAD. OR. "MISSING".
EVERY Socialist revolution is awash with blood, always has, always will be, because it is inherent in the ideology. You may not see or accept it, in which case I would posit that you have not studied the reality of Socialism; the mass-murder of the Kulaks and of Jews; the Holodomor and the Gulags; the Cultural Revolution and the Killing Fields of Cambodia.
You can deny it or not believe it, but you'd be wrong and there's simply no changing that fact; all Socialism ever does is lead to misery and death.
1
-
@Shylade I don't, I'm saying that UBI is a Socialist policy which is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity/Catholicism.
Right. Because your employer will not pay what people need to survive, MY wages should be taxed (with the threat of violence...) to prevent you from starving?
I should subsidise HIS business, so he can make money, while I get nothing in return?
Can you see the problem with this?
Because it makes your life awful, I should concede to emotional blackmail that this business uses?
Sorry, but no. I know that can seem callous, but I don't mean it to be. I'm 100% directing it at your employer, not you.
If you're doing something that needs doing, then you should be compensated fairly for that. The person asking you to do that work should be paying you. I don't know/care what you do, it doesn't matter - you could be a doctor or a street sweeper - the same rules should apply.
If you're doing something of no value (which I HIGHLY doubt; you more likely wouldn't have a job at all), then you shouldn't be doing it, you should be doing something else, something that DOES add value.
I'm not responsible for what your employer pays you. Make me dictator of the world and I'll look into it for you...
The minimum wage is another Socialist policy which robs people of their autonomy.
Britain didn't have a minimum wage until 1998. We also didn't have mass immigration. Before the mid 90's, real-terms wage growth across society between had, since the war, been higher than it had ever been. The gap between rich and poor was also smaller than it is now.
Now, those at the bottom are stuck, fighting for minimum wage jobs with immigrants who regularly have their rights violated by unscrupulous business owners.
And because there is so much extra labour available, there is no incentive for businesses to offer higher wages, because there is always someone cheaper/more desperate to do the work.
This isn't a criticism of the immigrants, far from it - I don't blame anyone for trying to find, to MAKE, a better life for themselves - it is me pointing out the relationship between immigration, low wages and minimum wage.
1
-
1
-
JohanMDK Yes, but it doesn't make it right.
That's the WHOLE POINT of Free Will.
The Catholic church persecuted Galileo, but who was right? Who was the heretic and the blasphemer? The one who used the gifts God gave him or the ones who tried to deny reality, but held the authority of the church? Only one if those denied the Glory of God and His Works. And it wasn't the astronomer...
Being a Catholic means being more than a simple adherent to the edicts of the Papacy.
"I was just following orders" isn't going to cut it when we're standing in account if ourselves. (Yes, you heard me, I did just go THERE, because you SHOULD be ashamed of what you just said!)
UBI fails on two fundamental principles of Catholic teaching:
1. It denies autonomy. "If a man will not work, not shall he eat." By failing to distinguish between those who CAN'T and those who WON'T, it does not uphold the principle of personal responsibility we are all subject to, which was ALWAYS at the heart of Jesus' teachings.
2. It is based on compulsion. "None can come to the Father, except through me." Being a Christian is a CHOICE. You must choose to believe and live as a good person. You must choose, willingly, to give what you have to the poor and the needy. There is no grace in accepting that what you have is taken from you and redistributed by someone else; charity must be active, not compulsory or merely performative.
Before any 3rd-party starts talking about cherry-picking quotes, I would caution that the phrases selected are summaries, built upon layer-upon-layer of stories and ideas and principles expressed throughout the Bible. Frankly, if you're not a Catholic or hard-core Bible scholar, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Even many who are raised Catholic don't get it - like the current incumbent at the Holy See, for example...
And no, I'm NOT saying "let the poor starve", I'm saying let the LAZY starve, because why should I work so they can have a free ride?
How, by ANY moral standard, can that be right? I mean, isn't that the definition of slavery - being COMPELLED to work for someone else's benefit?
For those who don't have English as a first language, "poor" and "lazy" do NOT mean the same thing; there are too many working poor, too many rich layabouts, but UBI is NOT the way to address the issue, especially if you're coming at it from a Catholic perspective.
UBI sounds nice, but really, it's a snake, dressed as a wolf, wrapped up in sheep's clothing, ready to get you to sell your children to the false God of Equality for a "fuck you" and a loaf of bread.
1
-
JohanMDK God gave you free will, not The Church, and He expects you to use it.
It's interesting that you don't address my argument, you just ad-hominem, calling me short-sighted.
I have set out, on the basis of doctrine, why I believe this is wrong.
On a superficial level, UBI seems to be in line with Catholic teaching, but the deeper you dive, the more ugly and un-Christian it gets.
How are YOU - yes, personally - going to pay for UBI? You're not? You're going to expect everyone ELSE to pay for it? Compelling others to pay for something (and it will be compulsory!), denying them their moral agency, "for the greater good".
Doesn't seem very Christian to me; Isn't the road to hell paved, with good intentions?
"The rich should pay."
Isn't Envy one of the 7 Deadly Sins?
"It's not envy."
Really, are you _sure_? Aren't we all flawed creatures? Constantly battling our darker nature? I work for rich people. I'm often envious of them. That's all the more reason I DON'T demand that they have their money taken from them (I just try not to think about how filthy rich they are and how easily they COULD pay me more and not even notice...).
What about the effect on the wider economy? What about inflation? What about the impact of taking-away the incentive of tangible rewards for hard work?
Yes, incredibly short sighted, I am.
You may agree with the His Holiness, but that doesn't mean you are right.
Just because I disagree with the Vatican, it doesn't mean I am wrong.
We get to argue all we like.
Only God gets to judge.
That's the point.
1
-
@perthdude21 Okay, engaging Hard Mode 😉
I'm sure someone clever said "You can't save everyone. It is folly to try."
Universal healthcare is good if you can achieve it, but it comes at a PRICE.
The PRICE we must pay for universal healthcare, is that we MUST turn people away. If you build and fund a system with the contributions of 50 million and then expect it to support 100 million or more, it will collapse.
What good is a system that cannot be maintained?
This is why you cannot have unlimited, unmitigated immigration. Sure, if people have insurance or pay for treatment with cash, no problem.
As well as practicability, the point here is consistent with my objection to UBI - compulsion - you're not compelling people to pay for those who WILL NOT pay for their own treatment. Like I say, don't confuse "charity" for "being a sucker".
Does this mean not paying for those who can't? Probably, but if you don't have a principled basis to operate from, you'll end up trying to save everyone and running the system into the ground, so that, eventually, no one benefits. Except the rich. The rich are always unaffected. And they probably got rich selling medical supplies... (How many politicians who advocate UBI and universal healthcare regularly have to choose between "heating or eating"?)
If individuals want to make charitable donations to improve healthcare around the world, to obviate the need for health tourism, that's fine, a very Christian thing to do, but they should not be compelled to do so.
This is also why I despise the pillaging of foreign healthcare systems for the benefit of the NHS. We don't train enough doctors and nurses in the UK, so we STEAL them from other - USUALLY POORER - countries around the world.
If THAT isn't Colonialism, I don't know what is...
(You'll note that Leftie/Socialist types don't usually have a problem with this, which baffles me!)
We should be using our wealth to train a surplus of doctors and nurses, to send out around the world, to help build high-quality, sustainable healthcare everywhere, not jealously hording all the medical practitioners to ourselves... Like Smaug, atop his piles of gold...
Talking specifically about the UK NHS:
The principle behind the NHS is "Free at the _point of use_, on the basis of _need_." (My emphasis)
That was never meant to mean "free, even if you don't pay in". It is also supposed to be a system of need - so elective surgeries fall into a grey area...
The argument around people who don't look after themselves is thorny, because it does touch on the compulsion aspect... But then, it's less clear-cut than "I don't want to work". After all, how much does lifestyle ACTUALLY impact health (some who do all the bad things live to 100...); WHY is the lifestyle the way it is - is the person fat because they are mentally ill and self-medicating?
Personally, my answer to this would be "spend more on mental health and try to actually fix underlying social issues", but that would mean giving a shit about people...
What? You think I don't care? No, it's because I actually do, unlike a lot of politicians (and the really idealogical Marxists/Socialists), who merely see people as a means to an end - a route to power.
Because I care, I care about what works*, what *actually makes people's lives better, what actually makes the world a better place.
What good is "giving millions to charity" if those charities are corrupt and only benefit the people that run them? Charity must be genuine and conscious, never merely performative.
Appreciate that's a lot to take in, but it's a hard subject, need to do it justice...
1
-
@perthdude21 Sorry, only answered your last question...
Socialism, is a catch-all for the Marxists-derived and related philosophies that have self-described at some point or another as Socialist, Socialism or Communism. This includes Fascism and National Socialism (I know Marxist hate that, but it's not MY fault they were inspired by the same people...).
The key characteristic of Socialist governments is that they elevate the "rights" of society (esp. Fascism) or some abstract ideal ("The Utopia"; Marxism) over the rights of the individual.
Because of this EXPLICIT ignoring of the individual, they are, universally, responsible for the imprisonment and murderer of political opponents and more-often-than-not, large portions of their own citizens.
I'm well-aware of the distinctions between Fascism and "pure" Socialism, but it doesn't matter - when someone is putting you up against a wall at the end of a gun, such concerns are merely academic.
Or to put it another way:
Who was worse? Hitler, or Stalin?
It's a trick question: they were both evil.
UBI is Socialist, because, *philosophically*, it comes from the Communist/Socialist utopianism of Marx et al., for the reasons I have already explained.
One could, probably, make a practical, non-Socialist argument for UBI, but I've not seen one and doubt I ever will...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rusi6219 Dunno if my full reply is delayed, or I tripped the bots, but, in short, invoking a shell with user-supplied input, is always a gun.
Calling a .bat file is invoking a shell, as would calling a .sh.
Believing any runtime (Rust, C, whatever) can make it not a gun is a mistake; they are, at best, a trigger guard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hmldjr 🤣 No one serious believes that.
At worst, there would have been a peace treaty that restored the borders to 1914, but the general consensus is that the war would have ground on for about another 6 months, with a German surrender coming in mid-1919.
By early 1918, the Germans were already a spent force, primarily due to the British naval blockade and were on the verge of economic collapse. The offensive of early 1918 was only possible due to the withdrawal of the Russians in late 1917; the 1918 offensive was the last that the Germans were capable of. Without the US, the Germans may have taken more ground, but would not have broken the British and French.
The US troops in theatre in early 1918 were fresh, enthusiastic, but as green as they come and TERRIBLY led. They were valuable in blunting the 1918 offensive, but this was more through personal courage than organisational merit; it wasn't until the Summer that they were truly "effective".
So no, we didn't "need" the US forces, but they did shorten the war - even though that came at the cost of 1 million dead due to the "Spanish" flu.
History is more complex - and interesting - than Hollywood presents.
1
-
1
-
@jtbrown51 The question/issue is one of approach.
It took months to build the current pad and infrastructure, that is, if they were to scrap it and start again, it would take about 3 months to rebuild the entire launch mount.
The Canaveral pad took 3 years - they did a lot of calculations, added a big safety guess and then built it. This is what is incorrectly referred to as "over engineering". It was done this way because they could not afford to scrap it and start again (time, not money - had to get to the moon first).
SpaceX are taking a different approach: instead of guessing, they're testing (to destruction) then adding more design.
The point is that you "waste" more during R&D, but once you have the correct solution, you know it is the simplest (cheapest) for when you build many more. This is the key; the one thing that you (and many others) seem to be missing is that SpaceX is not NASA and has a very different perspective. Musk is trying to build a system where launches are happening multiple times per day, versus NASA, where launches happen occasionally.
The best analogy I can think of is runways: if you're Boeing building a runway at your production facility, you build a massive (extra-wide, extra-long) runway, so it can accommodate any plane you might build in the future. It's worth doing this because you only need to do it once and the cost of having too large is tiny compared to too small.
But if you're a commercial airport, you build a runway as big as you need - you pick a class (say 777) and you build a runway to accommodate that, with as small a safety margin as possible, because you know that this will be all you need.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AK-vx4dy "... is not an error." That depends, entirely, on your perspective.
The function defines that the absence of the string is an exception, which you could think of as an error, but shouldn't.
Forget your preconceptions, then look at it from a "what is the purest Happy Path this code could take?" then layer-on "everything outside the Happy Path is an Exception". From this perspective, a function that returns the location of a substring should throw an exception, because "why are you looking for the location when the string doesn't exist?"; if you want to know if it contains the string, why aren't you using 'in' or 'contains()'?
This is the "railway programming" he was talking about, just expressed differently.
Does the Exception qualify as an error? That's for you to decide, not the language.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TGuard00014 You say "resources", as if this situation existed in a vacuum.
What about the fact that this corpse is using up machinery that could be used to keep a child alive that has a prospect of life? What about the time and energy of the medical staff?
The NHS did NOT kill their son, he was already dead. Whether they accept that or not is immaterial. He is not coming back.
The other side of this is that his organs could have been used to give life and hope to a sick, but living child, but because of his parents selfishness, that is no longer the case.
You wrongly assume that I have no empathy for these parents. I do, but I also understand the responsibility that doctors have to "do no harm".
The medical ethics of situations like this are actually quite firmly established. Maintaining a corpse on life support has been decided to be "doing harm". Not on a whim, not arbitrarily, but by long, careful argument, assessing all sides of the argument.
Part of the problem we have is that we are ruled by emotion, rather than by balance.
It doesn't help that doctors haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently...
As someone who has a paediatrician in his immediate family, I can assure you that the doctors are EVERY bit as affected by this as the parents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi, I will explain in detail (please read) but this is a bad video, which focuses on the wrong things and teaches all the wrong lessons.
To be clear, this isn't your fault, you (and I!) were simply taught badly in the first place.
As others (i.e., the other old gitz 😉) have already pointed out: an optimising compiler will analyse a cascading if-else and treat it like a switch (giving the generally appropriate optimisation) if it can do so. By focusing on what a non-optimising compiler will do, you are engaging in a Premature Optimisation, which we know "is the root of all evil" (C.A.R. Hoare)
Indeed, the truth of this can be found in Python: Guido, being aware of this optimisation, deliberately ommited a switch statement from the language.
So, why switch vs. cascading if-else?
The correct answer has zero to do with optimisation of the output code; it is entirely to do with design intent and maintainability of your code.
Your example of an Enum is the correct starting point and you are correct about the readability/maintainability aspect of enums over magic values (though, it should be OPTION_QUIT, etc. as you're almost certainly going to have to expose it outside the module, but I digress.)
Combining an enum with a switch, you are signalling to the reader/maintainer that you processing a fixed set of values (and what those values are). This signal enables the maintainer to perform a cognitive context switch, to "filter out" a whole bunch of questions and to load-in a focused set of diagnostics:
- are all enum values checked (if not, why not?)
- are there any missing break statements? (And are these intentional?)
- are the cases correctly formed? (No jumps or compound statement gotchas).
- does the default do something sensible (and if it is just a break, is there a comment saying that this is intentional?)
Equally importantly, it enables static analysis tools to ask these same questions and prompt you to fix your errors. (These are errors, unless appropriate AND documented in the code...)
These questions are important for one simple reason: experience shows that variances are what lead to bugs. Code that's "fast", but does the wrong thing is the quintessential Premature Optimisation.
Using a cascading if-else requires a different, more open-ended analysis, which requires more energry and is more time consuming.
Where you have more complex predicates - whether evaluating inequalities, ranges or multiple variables - this is where if-else becomes the correct tool. How you then write your if-else is a separate topic and is really an "it depends" and there is more room for personal preference and tailoring to a specific set of code block (do I bifurcate and nest or do I repeat tests?)
As to the detail of how a compiler "optimises", these are correct, but you have missed THE most important step: you did not profile the code BEFORE determining whether to persue optimisation.
Modern processors (not just CPUs) are too complex to "guess" what the optimal output is. If you're guessing, you're going to be wrong, unless you are lucky. Even the the example you pick, which, in general, will be optimal, is not guaranteed to provide the best performance in all circumstances (never seen it, but that doesn't mean it can't happen; the point is that processors are THAT complex that any assumptions about performance are, by default, wrong; think of it as "Murphy's Law of Optimisation".)
But more importantly, it's extremely unlikely that a switch/if-else block is going to be such a bottleneck that it's worth optimising.
20 years ago, it barely made sense "in general", but now? Now, if you have not profiled your code and from that data determined that you have a major bottleneck, then this is such a low-level optimisation, that this is completely the wrong thing to be worrying about.
This is a topic for people wanting to understanding how optimising compilers work and would serve as a good introduction to that subject, but you should be explicitly presenting in that context, rather than the general context you are using here.
Finally: C does not guarantee zero-initialisation of non-static arrays/variables, so you should always explicitly zero-out an array or set the value (scanf) before you evaluate, i.e. there should be two scanf_s() calls (or use a do-while) - one before the while and one at the end, assuming you have not terminated. (Always use scanf_s over scanf, especially in educational code.) Using scanf_s would have prevented the buffer overrun you created - %s outputs n+1 characters.
Educational code should always check for error in return values (if (scanf_s(...) == EOF) {// Error occurred} in this case).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have very strong opinions on MH treatment.
I have found that a lot of men get really bad service because treatment is not male-oriented.
I have encountered FAR too many MH professionals that do not know the basic statistics around suicide:
50% of suicides in men (who represent the vast majority of suicides) have NO underlying MH condition and that the peek day for suicide is New Year, not Christmas.
What you talk about is so true.
It is extremely important to understand that men need meaning and an important part of meaning is working and being able to provide for their family.
People ignorantly put this in terms of "standard of living", but it is deeper than this. It is part of our evolutionary biology. It is the same reason men who are fit and healthy suddenly fade-away and die when they retire, when everyone "would think he would go on forever".
If a man is struggling, the absolute worst thing possible is to take away his job, especially of it's one that's required a lifetime of investment. It would literally be #1 on the "how to get a man to off himself" checklist!!! (Followed by take away his family.)
A good wife can help (and a bad one can be fatal), but what men need are other men to help them recontextualise what they're going through and actively support them by doing manly things. Simple things like building something or painting or gardening. Creative, constructive things that often gets ignorantly dismissed as "silly".
For example, Henry Cavil is famous for painting wargame minatures. This is actually one of the most manly activities out there at a very, very deep level and is, perhaps, only surpassed by building a shed... which you then use for painting wargaming figures.
We need to update the definition of manhaood to include regularly pulling your friends aside and asking them "How you doing? No, how are you doing? ", especially around high-stress events and then stepping-up to actively support them if the answer ever comes back "not so good".
And for f** sake, don't ever take psychedelic drugs outside a hospital setting! You may as well put a loaded gun in their hand!
I have come to the conclusion that there are very, very few women who really understand what it's like. This is not a slight on women, just a reflection of the fundamental difference between male and female experiences. If you are one of these rare women, you are absolute gold dust.
The simple reality is that no one will ever come to save us, so we men have to do it ourselves.
1
-
1
-
Couple of things:
"Python is the second best language for any project."
BDFL has stated "if you're worried about performance, why are you using Python?"
In this sense, Python should be used for prototyping, to understand the problem and work out how to solve it correctly. Once you have a correct solution, translating that to a performant language is trivial in comparison (plus, you have a reference implementation to test against).
Given we rarely get it right first time ("Plan to Throw One Away"), the only "performance" that matters, is getting to a correct solution.
Not strictly a Python issue, but comments in code are just like unittests: done right, with the right intent, they are GoodThing™ and should be encouraged.
Good comments give a different view of the code.
I've had many people say "you don't need comments or documentation when you have the code", but if I just want to use your code, why should I be forced to spend my time delving into your code? (which may or may not be a pleasant experience in and of itself...)
Documentation forms part of the user interface. If there is a numerical argument, I should not need to read beyond the doc comment to know what the acceptable range is.
People make the argument that "comments don't get updated". I consider this a feature, not a bug.
When there's a mismatch between stated intent in a comment and what the code does, then something, somewhere has gone wrong, potentially seriously so, therefore questions need to be asked. (And Mk1 re-education devices applied... 😉)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Programming is an international business - I have to be 10x better than someone in India or I simply don't have a job, because of the wage differential.
I have to constantly fight the resistance to automation, the same tired arguments that have been made for 300 years and proven wrong time and time again.
And I have seen groups that fail to automate, fail to deliver on required efficiency, be canned and outsourced.
Seeing a handful of people let go at the same time is nothing compared to when you get into the hundreds.
Resistance to automation always impacts the older workers the hardest.
The way to deal with this is to positively embrace automation and ensure that workers are developing the skills now to thrive in the automated future, so that you don't get to the point where a 55 year-old is just cast-aside and then unable to find alternative work, because they're "too old". Better to embrace and let any redundancies happen through natural wastage over time.
The problem with this is that it reduces the income and power of the union bosses today. Which is what it ultimately boils down to - power.
The idea that unions operate for the benefit of their members is a fantasy - a myth from the early days of unions. Now, they are corrupt organs of personal power. (Take away, pro rata, money from the union boses for every day their members are on strike and then let's see how many strikes we have...)
'I don't care if everyone else loses their job, as long as I get mine.'
There's a word for that: evil. Especially when you exist BECAUSE of the other jobs - if there's nothing produced or can be afforded, then there's nothing to ship, is there?
No, there is no morally justifiable defence for resistance to automation and unions don't operate for the long-term interests of their members, because theur current structure prevent that.
Stosel simply did a bad job articulating the case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ascpixII The Linux linker uses semantic versioning and has since "forever". If you can't understand SemVer, then you should probably try a different career.
It's not complex, but is complicated. Maybe, you should think about your design more carefully before you make breaking changes? If you find you're constantly having to make breaking changes, maybe there's something fundamental going on that you're missing?
I'm sorry, but there comes a point where you can't dumb things down any more; SemVer is about as simple as it gets beyond "you just have to read the release notes and assume every change is breaking".
Sorry if I seem short, but at the end of the day, I was born blind in one eye (legit) and was never going to win Wimbledon (or be a fighter pilot...), no matter how hard I tried; maybe software dev just isn't for some people and we shouldn't compromise something that is good and works (and worked before SemVer was codified in its current form) for the sake of people who can't understand "Semantic versioning is ONLY for communicating library compatibility between developers."
The problem with SemVer, is it forces people to think and people don't want to think, they jUsT wAnNa CoDe, MaN!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flaviusbelisarius7517 No, I wouldn't.
I agree, it's the hardest part of our constitution to understand, but actually, fundamentally, our constitution is "Britain is a Nation of Laws".
There is a tacit acknowledgement that a constitution is /just another law/; it is created by Man and is, therefore, *by definition*, imperfect (which comes very-much from our Christian heritage). What we have is actually, ironically, a PERFECT realisation of what Thomas Paine said in The Rights of Man; only the living have the moral authority to make laws.
A written constitution, for which, Paine advocated, is the, ironically, the dead imposing their will on the living... And as anyone who observes Tin-pot Dictators will know, a constitution is no barrier to tyranny - it is the institutions and the people that operate them that are the guardians.
Another aspect is that by having an unwritten constitution, we maintain flexibility - no one (or group) is smart enough to forsee all possibilities; do you think that the Founding Fathers would be happy at corporations censoring (oppressing) people? But because the constitution didn't ban it, it's okay, RIGHT?
So, no, in spite of the terrible precedent set yesterday, I do not think that the solution is a "written" constitution as the REAL problem is that the politicians don't /understand/ the value of the system we have...
If I were to offer a solution, it would be something along the lines of:
Throughout our history, we have held those in power to account; we have shot admirals and even beheaded a king, but we've never hung politicians... Perhaps the incentive structure under which our politicians operate needs reconsidering?
1
-
1
-
Sorry, but this just comes across as semantic jibberish.
You know that the the original description of Waterfall was a critique, right?
You also fundamentally misunderstand Agile.
Agile is not the absence of specification, it's the development of specification closer to the time they will be implemented; when you're doing Agile, you should still have thorough requirements specification for the features you've implemented/are implementing, you just do them together.
This differs from Waterfall, in that:
1. Doing waterfall implies up-front analysis of a problem in a changing world, where the time between analysis and implementation can be years. This leads to the problem of requirements churn, where "management" keep changing their minds as the (perceived) needs of the organisation change.
2. Developing the requirements and implementation in the light of what actually exists, rather that what "will". This works from both the business and technical perspective.
You get a new requirement that requires fundamental re-design? If you've been Agile, you'll have implemented only what you needed up to that point and so the "loss" is minimal.
SSADM/Waterfall is NO protection/guarantee against such technical redesign requirements. In fact, it was the frequency of these fundamental re-designs in Waterfall projects that contributed to the birth of Agile in the first place!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SabineHossenfelder Option A: We empoverish ourselves so that we return to pre-industrial state of economy, with equivalent population.
Option B: We continue to grow, the climate becomes inhospitable, Homo Sapiens is eradicated, world eventually returns to equilibrium; humanity does not even qualify to be recorded in geological scale.
These are the alternatives we are presented. They are dressed-up and downplayed, but this is the reality.
I don't want A and don't care about B. When someone presents an actual, WORKABLE plan that both increases global standards of living to at least 1990s levels everywhere AND "saves the climate", I will listen. Until then, all I see is falling standards of living across the world, except for the very rich.
The same very rich who are constantly flying around the world, telling me to consume less.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OGPatriot03 Notwithstanding that the fact he fell and hit his head was an accident, your comment displays a deep level of ignorance as to reality in which we live.
If police were unnecessary, their numbers would ALREADY have been cut back.
You think people haven't tried? What happens when they do?
Crime goes up, voters demand more police in the streets, crime goes down.
If we lived in a utopia, where everyone was nice to each other, all the time, we wouldn't need police. But we don't, so we do.
In the full context of this situation, the two officers directly involved did NOTHING wrong, except, perhaps, ALLOWING the man to get as close as he did in the first place.
It may not LOOK good, but that's irrelevant. All violence "looks bad", even when it's justified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1