Let's stop you right there. Food production in Ireland rose during the famine. The problem was that the English were more interested in acquiring land, and also in genocide. Why don't you go read the wikipedia article on the subject. Your platitude may or may not be sound but your example is seriously off base. It's like blaming the Shoah on capitalism: there may be some senses in which it could be considered true, but it mostly happened because the people in charge wanted it to happen.
The reason why modern apps are bloated is that programmers are expensive and expectations are high. The whole point of this profession is to save labor, and guess what? That includes programmer labor. You may have puffed up your ego about your perfect, unbloated, handcrafted code, but in the meantime the requirements have changed, the client is on the phone about how all the headings are 2px too wide, and the boss is leaning on your desk, asking you when exactly you can get those five new features prototyped.
mirc may be lean, but it's insecure, and it doesn't run on most devices. Frankly I'd like to see you try to duplicate all of Discord's features on any sort of timescale -- keeping in mind that feature parity is a moving target.
Performance is not what we optimize for. We optimize for cost of development and user experience, because those things will bite you in the ass far sooner. Things like app size or memory usage simply do not make the priority list. Your users do not care, and what your post says to me is that you've allowed yourself to become complacent with whatever technology you're comfortable with and stopped learning new stacks. That is actually a semi-rational choice; the upgrade treadmill is vicious, and sticking with (e.g.) C++ is at least one way to optimize your own efficiency. But show me anything written in straight C++ that has both mobile and web interfaces, provides a secure communications channel and a polished, responsive layout. Any one of those features developed without a library or framework would take years. Standards are high, and today's most popular computing platform didn't exist ten years ago.
Your shit does, in fact, stink. That you seem to have an axe to grind about "the cloud" and performance suggests to me that you're a systems programmer that is wondering where their platform went, and this
I think we're well past the point of diminishing returns and into the realm of significant drawbacks.
tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about and should consider exiting the profession.
As it happens, the CIA has explained the issue fairly clearly. Perhaps you should get your head out of your partisanship. That this was within the reach of an amateur was precisely my point. This is possible. It has been done. It was a shit-show. I'd prefer that not happen again. Regardless of who you support, this sort of shit is not good for the country. We don't need to be yanked around politically by some rat fucker in Somalia.
There are bigger issues than Trump, and bigger issues than R vs D. In point of fact, it's the entire concept of R vs D that's the issue. We need more parties and better representation, and there's only one way we're going to get them.
As I replied to the other poster, the idea that climate could change at all was established separately from the idea that man could affect the climate. The two terms are nowadays synonymous. You are of course completely dependent on the fruits of science and certainly know very little about anything.
As it happens, AGW is at least as well established as Relativity, and it predates it. You could verify the theory in your basement. Why do you not feel ashamed of your ignorance?
This is well intentioned but inaccurate. The predominant theory in the 19th and early 20th Century was that the climate did not change, that it was solely cyclical and that warm years would cancel out cold ones. Theories of climate change were still necessary even in the 19th Century to explain ice ages. That mankind could do anything to affect the climate, and that the effect of this would be warming, was established separately from the idea that long-term climate could change. The two terms are used interchangeably today for fairly obvious reasons.
Russia is neither here nor there. They may have influence, they may not. What matters is that some state-level intelligence agency was able to disrupt the American electoral process. That's bad no matter what team you play for. Not only that, but now that it has been successful, do you think that will result in more attempts or fewer? And tell me, exactly how expensive is it to set up a team of hackers?
Can you imagine being in prison for forty years? What would that do to you?
Let's not ruin people's lives past the point of strict necessity. You were speaking in hyperbole, and he does deserve prison, but the sentiment is objectionable.
You're always talking about individual rights as if they were some part of physical reality. What you've never managed to do is respond to simple logic. Government is defined as a monopoly on violence for a given area. Under that formulation, non-coercive government is an oxymoron. I don't know how you've managed to convince yourself that there is some sort of primacy to the rights of the individual and that the collectivists will soon fall, but the entirety of human history speaks against that. Collective action is always stronger than the individual, and trying to pretend otherwise is fairly pure insanity.
I understand why you're a monomaniacal jackass. You did indeed come from an oppressive regime. This is an overcorrection. You have arrived at political principles that are fundamentally at odds with reality. And frankly I don't mind because it's pretty trivial to argue against. That thing where you say that your opponents are flawed and self destructive? That's called projection. Honestly it's kind of entertaining to watch your mental defects interact with each other but maybe next time save yourself the trouble.
I'm trying not to view this as imbecilic. Perhaps you can convince me that there's some sense I'm not seeing. It's still Before Coffee here, after all.
Uber have always been unethical pieces of shit. Remember when they had fake taxis on their maps? Prove that they don't still do that, even. What you're saying is that you ignored the previous indications that these were bad actors and got suckered by their propaganda stream. However, for those of us who have been paying attention, it's been pretty clear that the positive press has been bought and paid for, but now it seems that they can't keep a lid on things any more.
You were too eager to believe in this company. Every news story on Uber posted here has had people raising legitimate complaints about this company. And now you're "open to the idea"? No. Now it's blatantly obvious and you're engaged in rationalization.
We need a barrier to entry. We cannot afford to have unlimited competition in this market, because this market cannot price in congestion. Taxis are happy to bill you for their time even if you're sitting in gridlock. The system does not self-correct. Your further political arguments are uninteresting.
I keep having to repeat myself on this issue. We don't want unlimited competition in the transportation market because that market cannot price in congestion. The point at which sitting in traffic becomes unprofitable is far past the point of gridlock. If you would like to see the results of this, go down to Panama City. There are thousands of taxis, and you had better just hope you don't need to get across the city after midday. Good luck even getting a driver to pick you up. They can't collude to do surge pricing though, and Uber doesn't lose shit when you sit in traffic.
There are these things called "market failures", and they happen to be a very good reason to limit the number of taxi medallions in a given city. Competition is not always your friend.
It's a bit stronger than "psychologically dissatisfied" I'm afraid. But you'll be happy to know that the international standards of care for transgender patients require two mental health professionals and a general practitioner to have "bottom surgery".
I can fairly easily understand being dissatisfied with the results of GRS/transition. It's not necessarily going to gain you social acceptance, and if you really want to be female, there's still going to be a lot of things denied you. But I suppose the point that you might be able to clarify, were these people detransitioning because they no longer wanted to be female, or were they detransitioning because they no longer wanted to be a transgender female? Because I do think that we should probably draw a distinction between the two. At the least, I know a few transgirls who are pretty, but obviously transgender, and perfectly happy to be that as something good and complete in itself.
So I think the way I would describe being transgender would be something like, if you had a button to push that would give you your ideal body, that body would have opposite gender characteristics. There are a lot of ways that reality might not match that ideal, but it seems strange to me that the ideal would change. Body dysphoria is hell, straight up, and I really hope there aren't too many people unlucky enough to experience that from both sides. For me suicide would be pretty automatic at that point.
No, we don't disagree. Individual rights are important, and that's basically the core of libertarianism. Libertarianism is like a reducto ad absurdum of those principles, but I do think it's actually a good thing to have a bunch of mindless sociopaths championing their own self interest because, hey, maybe there could be some issues with arbitrary use of collective force. As a practical basis of a political system it's batshit, but as the polar opposite to collectivism it's at least a valid philosophy.
Sorry about the gender thing. Transgender people are really biologically distinct. I think we're going to get to a point where we're past this idea that everybody has to be one thing or another. I mean, I'm never going to argue with any person who wants to consider themselves the opposite gender, but I'm not sure why you would want to embrace that as opposed to developing an identity as a transgender person. Yes, we get treated pretty crappy, but otherwise it's not like it's inherently bad. To be honest, it's actually pretty cool as long as you're not saddled with crippling mental issues from dealing with the gender binary.
The alternative to recognizing that mental gender is a separate biological process which occurs after the sex organs are developed is to tell people that their gender does not exist. This is resulting in mass suicides. If your position is that transgender persons deserve to die, well, I suppose that would be logically consistent. I'd very much hope that not to be the case, however.
Telling you to go measure something has nothing to do with faith. You lack an education. I'd be more than happy to explain to you in as much detail as you like the evidence and history of the science of Global Warming. I've read most of the original research papers, the IPCC, and any published contrarian works (Spencer, Curry, and that IRIS guy spring to mind).
Calling the opposition zealots works for everything but science. In science empirical evidence is the only thing that matters. If you are not arguing against science with measurement (i.e. more science) your argument is invalid. Empiricism is the opposite of faith.
Yes, copyright protection only exists for large corporations, and even at that it's still hardly workable. Since the "John Doe" subpoenas haven't found much favor in the courts it's hardly even worth trying to identify individuals. Personally, and speaking as a content creator, everything I do I CC0 because people are going to steal it if they want to, and I may as well benefit from any potentially wider distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's stop you right there. Food production in Ireland rose during the famine. The problem was that the English were more interested in acquiring land, and also in genocide. Why don't you go read the wikipedia article on the subject. Your platitude may or may not be sound but your example is seriously off base. It's like blaming the Shoah on capitalism: there may be some senses in which it could be considered true, but it mostly happened because the people in charge wanted it to happen.
Kids these days, amirite?
The reason why modern apps are bloated is that programmers are expensive and expectations are high. The whole point of this profession is to save labor, and guess what? That includes programmer labor. You may have puffed up your ego about your perfect, unbloated, handcrafted code, but in the meantime the requirements have changed, the client is on the phone about how all the headings are 2px too wide, and the boss is leaning on your desk, asking you when exactly you can get those five new features prototyped.
mirc may be lean, but it's insecure, and it doesn't run on most devices. Frankly I'd like to see you try to duplicate all of Discord's features on any sort of timescale -- keeping in mind that feature parity is a moving target.
Performance is not what we optimize for. We optimize for cost of development and user experience, because those things will bite you in the ass far sooner. Things like app size or memory usage simply do not make the priority list. Your users do not care, and what your post says to me is that you've allowed yourself to become complacent with whatever technology you're comfortable with and stopped learning new stacks. That is actually a semi-rational choice; the upgrade treadmill is vicious, and sticking with (e.g.) C++ is at least one way to optimize your own efficiency. But show me anything written in straight C++ that has both mobile and web interfaces, provides a secure communications channel and a polished, responsive layout. Any one of those features developed without a library or framework would take years. Standards are high, and today's most popular computing platform didn't exist ten years ago.
Your shit does, in fact, stink. That you seem to have an axe to grind about "the cloud" and performance suggests to me that you're a systems programmer that is wondering where their platform went, and this
I think we're well past the point of diminishing returns and into the realm of significant drawbacks.
tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about and should consider exiting the profession.
Nice strawman. Trump is simply not important.
As it happens, the CIA has explained the issue fairly clearly. Perhaps you should get your head out of your partisanship. That this was within the reach of an amateur was precisely my point. This is possible. It has been done. It was a shit-show. I'd prefer that not happen again. Regardless of who you support, this sort of shit is not good for the country. We don't need to be yanked around politically by some rat fucker in Somalia.
There are bigger issues than Trump, and bigger issues than R vs D. In point of fact, it's the entire concept of R vs D that's the issue. We need more parties and better representation, and there's only one way we're going to get them.
As I replied to the other poster, the idea that climate could change at all was established separately from the idea that man could affect the climate. The two terms are nowadays synonymous. You are of course completely dependent on the fruits of science and certainly know very little about anything.
As it happens, AGW is at least as well established as Relativity, and it predates it. You could verify the theory in your basement. Why do you not feel ashamed of your ignorance?
This is well intentioned but inaccurate. The predominant theory in the 19th and early 20th Century was that the climate did not change, that it was solely cyclical and that warm years would cancel out cold ones. Theories of climate change were still necessary even in the 19th Century to explain ice ages. That mankind could do anything to affect the climate, and that the effect of this would be warming, was established separately from the idea that long-term climate could change. The two terms are used interchangeably today for fairly obvious reasons.
Russia is neither here nor there. They may have influence, they may not. What matters is that some state-level intelligence agency was able to disrupt the American electoral process. That's bad no matter what team you play for. Not only that, but now that it has been successful, do you think that will result in more attempts or fewer? And tell me, exactly how expensive is it to set up a team of hackers?
Russia is the least of our problems.
Prison is supposed to be correctional, not retributional.
MBTI is not empirical and has some extremely significant flaws. It's not even good pseudoscience.
As the man says, this is one of those rare comments that deserves a +5 Troll moderation. Kudos :)
Can you imagine being in prison for forty years? What would that do to you?
Let's not ruin people's lives past the point of strict necessity. You were speaking in hyperbole, and he does deserve prison, but the sentiment is objectionable.
Ding ding ding!
I think it's fixable though. I'm working on it.
I just hope CSS doesn't end up being that Turing-equivalent something
This link comes with a side of schadenfreude and some quiet sobbing.
You're always talking about individual rights as if they were some part of physical reality. What you've never managed to do is respond to simple logic. Government is defined as a monopoly on violence for a given area. Under that formulation, non-coercive government is an oxymoron. I don't know how you've managed to convince yourself that there is some sort of primacy to the rights of the individual and that the collectivists will soon fall, but the entirety of human history speaks against that. Collective action is always stronger than the individual, and trying to pretend otherwise is fairly pure insanity.
I understand why you're a monomaniacal jackass. You did indeed come from an oppressive regime. This is an overcorrection. You have arrived at political principles that are fundamentally at odds with reality. And frankly I don't mind because it's pretty trivial to argue against. That thing where you say that your opponents are flawed and self destructive? That's called projection. Honestly it's kind of entertaining to watch your mental defects interact with each other but maybe next time save yourself the trouble.
The answer to your question is contained in the previous post.
I'm trying not to view this as imbecilic. Perhaps you can convince me that there's some sense I'm not seeing. It's still Before Coffee here, after all.
Laziness is a virtue in a programmer.
The whole point of this profession is to save labor. That includes programmer labor, especially because it's an expensive commodity.
I don't know who has mod points today but this comment is frankly ridiculous.
Central high power cloud machines are just a disaster waiting to happen, how many times does this have to be proven.
Once would be a good start. Do you really think that people are not designing fault-tolerant network infrastructure?
Uber have always been unethical pieces of shit. Remember when they had fake taxis on their maps? Prove that they don't still do that, even. What you're saying is that you ignored the previous indications that these were bad actors and got suckered by their propaganda stream. However, for those of us who have been paying attention, it's been pretty clear that the positive press has been bought and paid for, but now it seems that they can't keep a lid on things any more.
You were too eager to believe in this company. Every news story on Uber posted here has had people raising legitimate complaints about this company. And now you're "open to the idea"? No. Now it's blatantly obvious and you're engaged in rationalization.
We need a barrier to entry. We cannot afford to have unlimited competition in this market, because this market cannot price in congestion. Taxis are happy to bill you for their time even if you're sitting in gridlock. The system does not self-correct. Your further political arguments are uninteresting.
I keep having to repeat myself on this issue. We don't want unlimited competition in the transportation market because that market cannot price in congestion. The point at which sitting in traffic becomes unprofitable is far past the point of gridlock. If you would like to see the results of this, go down to Panama City. There are thousands of taxis, and you had better just hope you don't need to get across the city after midday. Good luck even getting a driver to pick you up. They can't collude to do surge pricing though, and Uber doesn't lose shit when you sit in traffic.
There are these things called "market failures", and they happen to be a very good reason to limit the number of taxi medallions in a given city. Competition is not always your friend.
It's a bit stronger than "psychologically dissatisfied" I'm afraid. But you'll be happy to know that the international standards of care for transgender patients require two mental health professionals and a general practitioner to have "bottom surgery".
I can fairly easily understand being dissatisfied with the results of GRS/transition. It's not necessarily going to gain you social acceptance, and if you really want to be female, there's still going to be a lot of things denied you. But I suppose the point that you might be able to clarify, were these people detransitioning because they no longer wanted to be female, or were they detransitioning because they no longer wanted to be a transgender female? Because I do think that we should probably draw a distinction between the two. At the least, I know a few transgirls who are pretty, but obviously transgender, and perfectly happy to be that as something good and complete in itself.
So I think the way I would describe being transgender would be something like, if you had a button to push that would give you your ideal body, that body would have opposite gender characteristics. There are a lot of ways that reality might not match that ideal, but it seems strange to me that the ideal would change. Body dysphoria is hell, straight up, and I really hope there aren't too many people unlucky enough to experience that from both sides. For me suicide would be pretty automatic at that point.
No, we don't disagree. Individual rights are important, and that's basically the core of libertarianism. Libertarianism is like a reducto ad absurdum of those principles, but I do think it's actually a good thing to have a bunch of mindless sociopaths championing their own self interest because, hey, maybe there could be some issues with arbitrary use of collective force. As a practical basis of a political system it's batshit, but as the polar opposite to collectivism it's at least a valid philosophy.
Sorry about the gender thing. Transgender people are really biologically distinct. I think we're going to get to a point where we're past this idea that everybody has to be one thing or another. I mean, I'm never going to argue with any person who wants to consider themselves the opposite gender, but I'm not sure why you would want to embrace that as opposed to developing an identity as a transgender person. Yes, we get treated pretty crappy, but otherwise it's not like it's inherently bad. To be honest, it's actually pretty cool as long as you're not saddled with crippling mental issues from dealing with the gender binary.
The alternative to recognizing that mental gender is a separate biological process which occurs after the sex organs are developed is to tell people that their gender does not exist. This is resulting in mass suicides. If your position is that transgender persons deserve to die, well, I suppose that would be logically consistent. I'd very much hope that not to be the case, however.
Telling you to go measure something has nothing to do with faith. You lack an education. I'd be more than happy to explain to you in as much detail as you like the evidence and history of the science of Global Warming. I've read most of the original research papers, the IPCC, and any published contrarian works (Spencer, Curry, and that IRIS guy spring to mind).
Calling the opposition zealots works for everything but science. In science empirical evidence is the only thing that matters. If you are not arguing against science with measurement (i.e. more science) your argument is invalid. Empiricism is the opposite of faith.
Yes, copyright protection only exists for large corporations, and even at that it's still hardly workable. Since the "John Doe" subpoenas haven't found much favor in the courts it's hardly even worth trying to identify individuals. Personally, and speaking as a content creator, everything I do I CC0 because people are going to steal it if they want to, and I may as well benefit from any potentially wider distribution.