Memory management is simple to any C or C++ developer. If you have difficulties with it, you are a bad developer. In C++, exception-safe memory management can be a bit tricky, but since C++ globally makes things simpler if you follow the right idioms, it still ends up being easier.
I work in high-performance computing, and my focus is on the in-core and shared-memory optimization of numerical code. There is no need to ever go to assembly. Just write the right C code, using attributes or built-ins if necessary (in my field, I use SSE and AVX intrinsics), and check the compiler generates the right thing.
Yet C developers have no problem using C, which is much more minimal language, to do much more than what you do with JavaScript, and they rarely depend on shitloads of libraries.
Not bold, just pragmatic. An action that would be bold is one where I would take a risk. Being seen associating with demonized people could negatively impact my standing in society, and would therefore constitute a risk; I was replying to your questions assuming my association with those people wouldn't be made public.
You do realize good and bad are left to each culture to define? Your argument is worth a godwin point. What are you suggesting to do about those people then? Forcing them to remote reserves? Exterminating them? Forcing them to discard their culture and learn ours? You're simply calling bad what you are not accustomed to. Historically, those people were referred to as barbarians, and were either reduced to slavery or dealt with using one of the above methods. I used rape or opposition to gay marriage as mere examples. This is valid for any idea that you do not share. A more concrete real-world example of a practice that defined certain societies but is illegal by most laws today is cannibalism.
Gay marriage does not cause distress to an observer
You're presuming that any human being feels the same way you do when facing a given situation. This is downright megalomaniac. If you cannot imagine that some people could feel distress at seeing anything, you severely lack the capacity for abstraction.
They might be arbitrary, but so is everything. Like it or not I can still call some better than others.
You can say some things are better than others, but if you believe that this "better" is absolute and is true regardless of the person involved, then that makes you a deluded simpleton.
Judging someone implies associating a person to a certain moral standing. Associating a bad moral standing to someone just because that person has a different opinion than you on a narrow and specific subject is prejudice, since you disregard all the other opinions that constitute a person or even their rationale.
To some people, rape could be a cornerstone of their culture and identity. Preventing them from indulging in it would then be very much akin to oppression. The difference is that rape generally causes severe distress to the raped, while gay marriage generally causes very mild distress to the observer. Establishing that difference however requires making judgements of the morals of the people involved, which are arbitrary. It is not impossible to imagine that some humans could live under a belief system that causes them to have severe psychological trauma whenever they see ostensibly gay people, while at the same time accepting rape as an everyday occurrence.
The majority of current human cultures just happens to have different morals than this. Refusal to accept that those morals are arbitrary and not necessarily "better" than others is just plain denial.
There is no absolute meaning to life, nor any authority to what is right or wrong. All we can do is make arbitrary choices. The idea being democracy is that arbitrary choices are judged to be best if the majority agrees to them. There are other systems too; each has its trade-offs. Democracy has the advantage that it gives legitimacy and a fairly good satisfaction rate, mitigating the risk of revolt.
In fact, you better go attend some KKK meetings to make sure you're not walling yourself off from ideas that are different from yours.
I'm not sure this is sarcasm. I assume it is. While it is probably not a great idea to waste time and energy going to KKK meetings if you're not particularly interested in their ideology, I believe it is a genuinely good idea to document yourself and possibly exchange with that kind of people to try to understand them (do not try to evangelize them or whatever, just understand) and broaden your view of life.
Your implicit argument is based on the assumption that they haven't already been exposed to Card's ideas. In reality, they have been, and have rejected them.
They've read the headline of a newspaper, or maybe an opinion piece by a zealous activist. That's not quite the same thing as reading all the work that he has written, where is opinions barely transpire, if not at all. Only once you've read all of his work can you say that you reject it.
Hitler was a painter. If he was still alive and had an art exhibit, can you honestly say that you would consider going, knowing that the money you pay would most likely fund his antisemitic campaigns?
My understanding is that he was a bad painter, which is why he turned to politics instead. He probably wouldn't have killed anyone if he could have been a successful artist. Moreover, funding a war takes quite more than what any painter could earn from an exhibit, so I wouldn't really make any sizeable contribution to the antisemitic campaigns. Those technicalities aside, I certainly wouldn't mind paying to see good art, even if the artist had been diabolized to arbitrarily high levels by society.
A democracy necessarily oppresses minority. For example, the law that prevents rape oppresses people who think rape is the natural order of things and should therefore be allowed. But the majority thinks otherwise, so it's not allowed. People that are pro-rape will be considered mentally ill or deviants, just what some people consider gay people to be. There is no more value to any belief, just a relative agreement established through the majority.
The American constitution, like the American declaration of independence, is full of make-believe feel-good fallacies justified by artifices like the existence of God. It is not an accurate description of how human activity is organized in today's society.
There are benefits for society to do this, I assume this is the reason he is suggesting this. If you can't see them, you are probably too narrow-minded. Enforcing the norm provides a stronger social order, a clear balance of power and a more unified set of values, more collectivism, and generally more efficient state maintenance and exchanges. Going out of the norm, on the other hand, leads to more freedom, more individualism and less restricted creativity. It's purely a matter of which aspects of society you want to promulgate.
What is the "norm"? Majority?
This is the definition of the norm, yes. Note that a democracy is a system which is based on the concept of following the majority's decisions. If they are opposed to the minority's, then so be it.
When you said the outcome of following his idea may have some benefits, the similar trend would also applies to the poster idea.
By the poster's idea, are you referring to the idea of vocally encouraging people to boycott the movie on ad hominem principles? The only benefit of doing that is to set up a large scale ad hominem campaign.
Advocating a law is hardly "forcing an opinion on others". This is democracy. It is ultimately voters or their representatives who get to decide, after much debating.
Orson Scott Card has suggested that the government should enforce certain societal rules and discourage people from going outside of the norm in public. The idea is valid, and could have some benefits, just as the alternative of allowing total freedom does.
The poster you're referring to is encouraging hate, boycott and stigmatization on the basis that he doesn't agree with this. This is quite more bigotry.
Slashdot Mirror
That's for plebs.
Better use real RAII.
Generational GC can still be mark and sweep (and most of them are). Generational or not is orthogonal.
Don't generate garbage; this way you won't have garbage to collect.
Memory management is simple to any C or C++ developer. If you have difficulties with it, you are a bad developer.
In C++, exception-safe memory management can be a bit tricky, but since C++ globally makes things simpler if you follow the right idioms, it still ends up being easier.
I work in high-performance computing, and my focus is on the in-core and shared-memory optimization of numerical code. There is no need to ever go to assembly. Just write the right C code, using attributes or built-ins if necessary (in my field, I use SSE and AVX intrinsics), and check the compiler generates the right thing.
Yet C developers have no problem using C, which is much more minimal language, to do much more than what you do with JavaScript, and they rarely depend on shitloads of libraries.
Memory management is easy. Just program in C instead of JavaScript, problem solved.
Yes. There is no business sector where you can escape death.
Then you are not fit to make any judgement, as you are unable to discard your bias.
Not bold, just pragmatic.
An action that would be bold is one where I would take a risk. Being seen associating with demonized people could negatively impact my standing in society, and would therefore constitute a risk; I was replying to your questions assuming my association with those people wouldn't be made public.
That applies to any cellphone, not just iOS/Android devices.
You do realize good and bad are left to each culture to define? Your argument is worth a godwin point.
What are you suggesting to do about those people then? Forcing them to remote reserves? Exterminating them? Forcing them to discard their culture and learn ours?
You're simply calling bad what you are not accustomed to. Historically, those people were referred to as barbarians, and were either reduced to slavery or dealt with using one of the above methods.
I used rape or opposition to gay marriage as mere examples. This is valid for any idea that you do not share. A more concrete real-world example of a practice that defined certain societies but is illegal by most laws today is cannibalism.
You're presuming that any human being feels the same way you do when facing a given situation. This is downright megalomaniac.
If you cannot imagine that some people could feel distress at seeing anything, you severely lack the capacity for abstraction.
You can say some things are better than others, but if you believe that this "better" is absolute and is true regardless of the person involved, then that makes you a deluded simpleton.
Judging someone implies associating a person to a certain moral standing.
Associating a bad moral standing to someone just because that person has a different opinion than you on a narrow and specific subject is prejudice, since you disregard all the other opinions that constitute a person or even their rationale.
To some people, rape could be a cornerstone of their culture and identity. Preventing them from indulging in it would then be very much akin to oppression.
The difference is that rape generally causes severe distress to the raped, while gay marriage generally causes very mild distress to the observer. Establishing that difference however requires making judgements of the morals of the people involved, which are arbitrary. It is not impossible to imagine that some humans could live under a belief system that causes them to have severe psychological trauma whenever they see ostensibly gay people, while at the same time accepting rape as an everyday occurrence.
The majority of current human cultures just happens to have different morals than this. Refusal to accept that those morals are arbitrary and not necessarily "better" than others is just plain denial.
There is no absolute meaning to life, nor any authority to what is right or wrong. All we can do is make arbitrary choices.
The idea being democracy is that arbitrary choices are judged to be best if the majority agrees to them.
There are other systems too; each has its trade-offs. Democracy has the advantage that it gives legitimacy and a fairly good satisfaction rate, mitigating the risk of revolt.
I'm not sure this is sarcasm. I assume it is.
While it is probably not a great idea to waste time and energy going to KKK meetings if you're not particularly interested in their ideology, I believe it is a genuinely good idea to document yourself and possibly exchange with that kind of people to try to understand them (do not try to evangelize them or whatever, just understand) and broaden your view of life.
They've read the headline of a newspaper, or maybe an opinion piece by a zealous activist. That's not quite the same thing as reading all the work that he has written, where is opinions barely transpire, if not at all.
Only once you've read all of his work can you say that you reject it.
My understanding is that he was a bad painter, which is why he turned to politics instead. He probably wouldn't have killed anyone if he could have been a successful artist. Moreover, funding a war takes quite more than what any painter could earn from an exhibit, so I wouldn't really make any sizeable contribution to the antisemitic campaigns.
Those technicalities aside, I certainly wouldn't mind paying to see good art, even if the artist had been diabolized to arbitrarily high levels by society.
They're simply not tech-savvy, like most ordinary people.
A democracy necessarily oppresses minority.
For example, the law that prevents rape oppresses people who think rape is the natural order of things and should therefore be allowed. But the majority thinks otherwise, so it's not allowed. People that are pro-rape will be considered mentally ill or deviants, just what some people consider gay people to be. There is no more value to any belief, just a relative agreement established through the majority.
The American constitution, like the American declaration of independence, is full of make-believe feel-good fallacies justified by artifices like the existence of God. It is not an accurate description of how human activity is organized in today's society.
Also known as democracy.
Your point being?
We only protect minorities from the oppression of the majority if the majority wills it so.
He is judging the person based on his opinion on a particular subject. That is prejudice.
There are benefits for society to do this, I assume this is the reason he is suggesting this. If you can't see them, you are probably too narrow-minded. Enforcing the norm provides a stronger social order, a clear balance of power and a more unified set of values, more collectivism, and generally more efficient state maintenance and exchanges. Going out of the norm, on the other hand, leads to more freedom, more individualism and less restricted creativity. It's purely a matter of which aspects of society you want to promulgate.
This is the definition of the norm, yes. Note that a democracy is a system which is based on the concept of following the majority's decisions. If they are opposed to the minority's, then so be it.
By the poster's idea, are you referring to the idea of vocally encouraging people to boycott the movie on ad hominem principles? The only benefit of doing that is to set up a large scale ad hominem campaign.
Being vocal about your boycott is hardly plain indifference.
Read the rest of the thread then.
Advocating a law is hardly "forcing an opinion on others".
This is democracy. It is ultimately voters or their representatives who get to decide, after much debating.
Orson Scott Card has suggested that the government should enforce certain societal rules and discourage people from going outside of the norm in public. The idea is valid, and could have some benefits, just as the alternative of allowing total freedom does.
The poster you're referring to is encouraging hate, boycott and stigmatization on the basis that he doesn't agree with this. This is quite more bigotry.