I'm a fan of Python, but this question is a joke, right?
Sidestepping interminable arguments about the merits of language A vs language B, and ignoring the flat-out ignorant assertions in the 'anonymous reader's thoughts' about IDEs and compilers, the question is predicated on a culpably ignorant interpretation of the very data they cite.
So here's how PYPL works:
The PYPL PopularitY of Programming Language Index is created by analyzing how often language tutorials are searched on Google.
so... what the data actually show is that relatively more folks want to learn Python these days than C or Java or Haskell (or whatever) — which is scarcely surprising since more non-specialist programmers are learning to code than ever before, and Python is easy to learn and great to teach with for that demographic — what the data definitely do NOT show is that Python is replacing C or Java or Haskell (or whatever) in the production domains in which those languages shine. And it never will.
In economics your statement "everyone pays their rightful share, each individual can pay less" is not necessarily true.
Yes, it is. Conservation laws hold in economics just as they do in physics! The "half-life" argument is pure freshman economics sleight-of-hand that conveniently ignores the fact that every dollar is equal, (spending vs income) at least from the point of view of GST. If the whole of my dollar of GST-liable spending goes instead to the cash vendor, they need to spend two dollars within the GST system to make sure that the system remains equivalent in tax revenue to two taxed transactions. Consider the reductio ad absurdum - if all vendors except me accepted cash only, how would my taxed income and spending habits need to change in order to provide a country's worth of GST revenue?
See my approximate federal tax bill in my reply above. So, nope, I do have to pay for those services.
Now show me yours so I can prove my hunch that in fact I pay more tax than you do. What I'm pretty certain of, if you're in the U.S., is that the reason I feel I am getting better value for my money is that instead of my government spending a huge (and increasing! Thanks Donald) fraction of those tax dollars on things that I don't use and never see the benefits of (military, prisons), they spend those dollars on things my family and I use all the time like the health system and subsidised day care.
In terms of federal taxes I pay about $30k in income tax per year, and about $2k goods and services tax.
I receive about $30 per week in government rebate (means tested) for my kids' childcare costs.
$32,000 - $1,560 > 0
You're wrong
All your points are excellent, and I agree with them, but they justify only a scepticism of U.S. government efficiency and spending priorities, and don't explain the general revulsion at the concept of taxation. Although everywhere these days "tax" is becoming a dirty word in politics, to the great detriment of intelligent policy discourse. Always always it is politicised spending programs (defence, law and order) that get the attention, and the fiscal conservatives grudgingly buy in to these programs often against all evidence and financial sanity, as the price of powersharing with the ideological conservatives. Revenue programs are boring, hard to sell, and easy marks for FUD. Consequence - magical thinking of the first order, that you can have your cake and eat it too.
who have posted and then modded up all the anti-taxation posts here. It may come as a surprise to you but as an Australian, I'm pretty happy with any mechanism that means that more of any equitable tax that lawfully can be collected, is collected. Because:
1. I enjoy my access to excellent free universal healthcare.
2. I enjoy the fact that my children attend a good public school
3. I enjoy my country's federal (interstate) highway system
4. I enjoy the fact that unfunded seniors, the disabled and others unable to provide for themselves are not forced to live on the streets or depend on charity
(I could go on...)
and lastly, because if everyone pays their rightful share, each individual can pay less. This is not about "extra" taxation, or taxing "3, 4, 5" times, but simply applying the same rules everyone. It is amusing to me that you assume that everyone in the world has the same allergic reaction to paying taxes that you do, because you assume that everyone else in the world shares the same jaundiced view of government and the social contract that many of you do - not just those on the libertarian fringe either, it seems, but reg'lar folks who rather unbelievably to me and many in my country, elected a president that publicly brags about paying little or no taxes. In Australia a political campaign would be dead in the water after such an admission, - the "obligation to shareholders blah blah blah" argument being self-serving bullshit in the case of a privately-held company like Trump Organization anyhow - because although we're not the fair and equitable nation we once were there's a pretty strong feeling that our obligations must balance our privileges. Of which we have many.
As it happens I don't think GST or other consumption taxes that this kind of payment system will help with tracking are the best kind of tax, but they're not entirely regressive either. For mine, a single, universal no-exemption financial transaction tax is the way to go.
... and mud in the eye of greedy corporations, just like Trumpty dumpty promised... right? I can't wait to see more such tremendous initiatives from Pai.
Oh, FFS I tried. You really are obtuse. My point, made tersely in my original response to Katko and pertaining directly to the topic of the OP, elaborated on with examples after you came white-knighting in here, being that Julian Assange is a dick - prone to behaving in a sanctimonious, hypocritical, cowardly fashion - said nothing whatever about wikileaks but is indeed largely predicated on accepting the claim that "Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business". So just keep repeating it. Either wikileaks is a dumb clearing-house or wikileaks is a legitimate publisher. If the former, Assange is at best some kind of unusually self-aggrandizing but otherwise tangential media commentator, guilty in this case only of lying about his willingness to trade himself for Manning - but if the latter, he's responsible for the at best shoddy job and terrible lapses of judgement and at worst the utterly venal nature of wikileaks' editorial policy - the failure to protect the innocent, the failure to champion let alone act on journalistic principles of fairness, independence and accountability, the threat to use information withheld for purposes of damage or retaliation etc. etc. Give me a good old fashioned partisan hack any day over the smooth untroubled hypocrite who believes he acts on principle./communication
Yes. Really. "I used to support you until I had these Concerns!" == concern trolling.
Again, no. Concern trolling is defined by the intent to disrupt the discourse by falsely representing one's motivations, not by the simple presence of a clause stating that "I don't believe x anymore" - particularly when the statement as in this case was a simple, if heated refutation of the stupid claim that "everyone used to believe in x until a week ago, so anyone who says they don't believe in it now is an American sockpuppet". But I think you know that, you just enjoy calling people names. If you really thought I were a troll, aren't you a little old to be feeding the likes of me?
Your hand waving and butthurt attempt at avoidance are noted.
What, like in a little black book or something? That sounds kind of authoritarian.
Yes that really is the issue right there, isn't it? Because either wikileaks is a publisher, and Julian is editor-in-chief and responsible for policy, or blah blah blah blah
Word salad is boring and needs more radishes.
And your failure to address the substance of a literally a single one of the points I made shows just how empty your argument is. Except it's not really argument is it, it's just name-calling informed by anarcho-syndicalist dogmatism - or somesuch drivel - tossed off without a thought. You don't have to stick to the party line on every bloody thing you know, you're allowed to have your own thoughts. Or a debate, with someone who probably agrees with you on more positions than not.
Not really, no, given the topic of the OP and the ludicrous assertions in the post I was responding to that essentially claimed all criticism of Assange had sprung up in the last week from "an [sic] US army of armchair warriors". But don't let facts and context get in the way when you're on troll roll, eh?
Wow. If I end up saying something stupid, I don't make a point of referencing the stupidity later on:
I very happily stand by my judgement and comments. You on the other hand seem to be suffering butthurt because... I don't know, your idol turned out to have feet of clay? That's ok, It happens to everyone, but you'll grow out of it. Leaktivism will (hopefully) survive Assange the Dick.
Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business.
Yes that really is the issue right there, isn't it? Because either wikileaks is a publisher, and Julian is editor-in-chief and responsible for policy, or it's a dumb pastebin/liveleaks type dumping ground and what role does that leave for him? And when you have the editor/figurehead/sometime-saint on the one hand saying that wikileaks' policy is fighting for openness and justice, even offering to sacrifice his own limited freedom to obtain clemency for Manning, and then on the other hand acting not only in a blatantly partisan fashion - remember wikileaks' criticism of Panama papers? The October surprise? Threats to release personal details of journalists families? but straight out in cowardly bad faith - no wikileaks material on Putin at all, no follow through on the Manning quid pro quo - then you have right there an enormous, flaming, king-size hypocrite.
2) Russian handlers? That's so stupid it's not worth responding to.
Indulge me and my stupidity, and respond anyway. Before you do, how about actually read the link in my old stupid comment to an eyewitness account from a Russian dissident, also look up the definitions of "mouthpiece" and "stooge". The best assets don't even ask to be paid in vodka or big macs, they do it for free because they've got their own motivations.
At your next troll meeting, you might suggest that you and your fellow trolls back up these character attacks on Assange, so you can't be dismissed as tools in.002 seconds.
What rock have you been living under? Plenty of originally supportive folks decided Assange was a dickhead a long time ago. I myself have been saying so in this very place for years, most recently just two months ago. And I'm not American let alone on some American psyops payroll, I'm an Australian who believes in freedom, whistleblowing and exposing corruption - you know, all the things that wikileaks used to stand for. So you can fuck right off.
Furthermore, the original model was proven wrong, leaving pro-global warmists without even a predictive model to cling to.
Seriously, what the righteous fuck are you talking about? Is your argument going to consist of a series of utterly unsupported assertions, or are you ever going to back up this shit with citations?
Oh, and I do read the journals, and know how to interpret the results - I'm a physics PhD so better than you, I almost guarantee it - and that plus the fact that I have kids and care about the world they are going to inherit is what made me and makes me passionate about the subject, not some fucking shill with an agenda in a Youtube video. Look, it occurs to me now from your language that you're actually 16 years old, in which case I forgive you, and suggest you get an actual education and stop looking at Youtube so much. Otherwise, again, grow up.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that a link to a Youtube video of a self-published and self-publicising "mens movement" crank interviewing a liar and fossil-fuel industry shill is a scientific citation? I had something more traditional in mind - you know, links to original peer-reviewed research.
I retract my previous assertion. Folks like you aren't remotely interested in the truth when it might impinge upon your own cuddly childish fantasy world. Grow up.
Please cite this new science. Or are scientific journals now part of the "legacy mainstream media"? People like you give even dumb ignorance a bad name.
No friend, you are flat-out wrong. No such debunking has taken place (care to provide even one citation?). Global temperatures have indeed risen in the last hundred years, and faster in the last 50 than in all of recorded history. See https://xkcd.com/1732/ for an excellent easy-to-read chart. Given even optimistic scenarios more rise is already unavoidably locked in. Rising temperatures caused by human emissions is a real effect, is unprecedented in its speed compared to natural variation, and is a big problem.
I'm not sure who you're charging with hypocrisy, but as someone who thought the Occupy movement at best quixotic and at worst simplistic, self-indulgent, and borderline antisemitic, I'm certainly not going to wear that one. The problem here, as with every one of Trump's positions, is that he's consistently proven himself shamelessly willing to both contradict himself without apology and also to play the man ("bankers") and not the ball ("the banking system"), appealing to both naked prejudice as well as legitimate grievance. And that delegitimizes his presidency, morally if not legally: until recently it's been an almost universally accepted if unspoken rule in American politics that you don't appeal to bigotry just to win. If both sides agree to play by that rule then neither political side gains an advantage, and society wins because repugnant beliefs are marginalized. Sure, racists are gonna vote anyway, but if a racist card isn't on the table then they're gonna vote on the real issues, as they should, and may the best candidate win. But under the new Trump rules, apparently it's ok to appeal to bigots directly. Sure, you walk back your initial extreme position later, and collect the votes of plenty of decent folks, but never exactly disown the original one. And happily pocket the original hater votes too, and win.
Lots of Trump voters here saying this victory wasn't all about hatred, racism and sexism. I agree; 49% of American voters can't be hateful racists, boastful sexual predators, or Putin apologists for that matter. But maybe 2% are, or 3% or 5%, and I know who they voted for, because Donald encouraged them, and never disowned them. And if he needed those votes to win, well then he didn't deserve it. Remember what those exact same folks said about Muslims, that not all Muslims are terrorists but 100% of terrorists are Muslim (which was never true, but anyway)? Well, now we know that not all Trump voters are Klan members but 100% of Klan members were certainly Trump voters, so they're all tarnished in my books until I hear some loud and heartfelt repudiation of every fucked-up thing Trump ever said. But I'm not holding my breath.
Yes, this was republished today from wikileaks twitter account, trying desperately not to look like bad guys now that they've played a hand in getting Trump in. But it's barely news, let alone scandalous. It's a perfectly legitimate strategy that I'm 100% certain the Republicans followed too (If you want amateur examples from this very forum, look back at all the faux-love Bernie got from Trumpeters like Okian Warrior et al, once it became clear that Hilary was DNC choice - a pure divide-and-conquer play). If you want real hard-core sanctimonious apologia from wikileaks though you should check out Assange's piece here. To summarize: "I only publishes whats I gets and my Russian handlers didn't give me anything damaging on Trump, so... I no publish anything". If you think that Russian handlers thing is a stretch, read what Nadya Tolokno has to say about it.
Ahahahahahaha... good one! He hasn't even picked up the keys yet and the excuses have started already! "It was like this when I got it!" "The other guy reversed into me!" "Some damn kids took it for a joyride!" The R's will have presidency and both houses and you STILL want to lower expectations for success because... "the Fed's bubble?" Don't forget the Jewish bankers, and illegal Mexicans, and I dunno, why not the liberal media too. They're all out there right now, working against America's success, just to spite Trump voters. How about we judge the guy at the end of his term by the same big-kids standards that every other president has been judged... on his record. I'll check back with you in four years. Best of luck.
Well, ignorant wealthy old white dude wins US presidency on the back of exaggerated hopes-and-fears based campaign... I don't really see what's surprising or new here. Appalling, certainly. Surprising, no.
You make some accurate and yet irrelevant rhetorical criticism while missing (or ignoring) the point. Consider responding directly to your interlocutor's arguments with a less patronizing, more emotive style, I think you'll find people are less likely to mistake you for an asshat.
Coming from the exact same group of people that threw the old buggy-whip makers argument in the face of cab drivers, this is too much. Yep, times change alright: and now they've changed against you. Seriously, what did you expect from Über?. And, you know, it's not like it's been a big secret that this was the long term plan.
Dear drivers;
Thank you for funding our autonomous vehicle research. Bye now.
Yours very sincerely,
T K
Point the first: this is a non-sequitor. Once again, you're trying to
claim it's primarily technical issues with the software, and I'm
making the point that you just don't like Larry Wall. He's just
not *one of us*. Why no gentleman would take swipes at Python's
one-true-way.
Ascribing particular states of mind to me might well make your points easier for you to make, but it doesn't make them any good. I don't dislike Larry Wall — I've never met him — although I certainly think he says some silly things, and I don't care at all for the language that he wrote. And although I like Python I haven't used it in my day job for several years now; my workplace is a Groovy/Java/Scala shop.
If you were actually someone in management, would you listen to
someone like yourself? Why?
Because I understand that despite what you seem to think, the technical challenges involved in language choice for larger software projects are about 1% "does the syntax of language x allow me to do y in this particularly neat way?" and 99% "how many keen programmers skilled in language x do I have/can I attract right now? how quickly can I bring a keen programmer unskilled in x up to speed? how performant, reliable and documented is the core language? how performant, reliable and documented are the 3rd-party libraries available for my problem domain? is there good 3rd party support in the form of testing, build tools, CI, IDE's, profiling tools, version control integration? will my codebase be maintainable by the current crew let alone new hires in 1 year? 5 years? 10?". Honestly if you think Perl is a legit contender in any of those fields against any of the language offerings from Oracle, Microsoft, Apple or Google you really need to get out more.
In the obvious trivial way all Turing-complete languages are "technically" equivalent in the limited sense that you want that word to mean, so there's really no point wasting time having the argument I imagine you want to have with me that goes like this: me: "oh, but Perl doesn't have such-and-such a feature" you: "of COURSE it does, you just cross the index and middle fingers of your left hand and recite the last verse of Genesis backwards!". I imagine I could have the same argument with a bash guru. FWIW even ignoring the to-my-eye horrendous syntax, the fact that for 25 years Perl evangelists have sung the praises of a language that has had such (ahem) eccentricities as braindead function declarations, lets-have-dynamic-typing-but-also-sigils, bolt-on-OO, a toy REPL, "my this our that" namespacing wtf, awful multidimensional data structures, idiosyncratic libraries ((badly) parsing XML to native datatypes, really?), ugly reference syntax (beating even C++ for homeliness, a miracle!), all the time hilariously making a big song-and-dance about "Easy things are easy" and "the principle of least astonishment" does not to my mind inspire confidence that those folks actually know what any other languages look like. 'Easy' isn't having a character-saving shortcut for some marginal use-case, it's having a language transparent enough that I get excited about the results and not how I got there. And that to me is the kicker - with all the language choices out there now, why are there so few significant new non-hobby projects being started in Perl? Clue... the answer is not "because kids are all stupid these days".
Slashdot Mirror
Sidestepping interminable arguments about the merits of language A vs language B, and ignoring the flat-out ignorant assertions in the 'anonymous reader's thoughts' about IDEs and compilers, the question is predicated on a culpably ignorant interpretation of the very data they cite.
So here's how PYPL works:
The PYPL PopularitY of Programming Language Index is created by analyzing how often language tutorials are searched on Google.
so... what the data actually show is that relatively more folks want to learn Python these days than C or Java or Haskell (or whatever) — which is scarcely surprising since more non-specialist programmers are learning to code than ever before, and Python is easy to learn and great to teach with for that demographic — what the data definitely do NOT show is that Python is replacing C or Java or Haskell (or whatever) in the production domains in which those languages shine. And it never will.
I meant, of course, that every dollar is NOT equal.
In economics your statement "everyone pays their rightful share, each individual can pay less" is not necessarily true.
Yes, it is. Conservation laws hold in economics just as they do in physics! The "half-life" argument is pure freshman economics sleight-of-hand that conveniently ignores the fact that every dollar is equal, (spending vs income) at least from the point of view of GST. If the whole of my dollar of GST-liable spending goes instead to the cash vendor, they need to spend two dollars within the GST system to make sure that the system remains equivalent in tax revenue to two taxed transactions. Consider the reductio ad absurdum - if all vendors except me accepted cash only, how would my taxed income and spending habits need to change in order to provide a country's worth of GST revenue?
See my approximate federal tax bill in my reply above. So, nope, I do have to pay for those services.
Now show me yours so I can prove my hunch that in fact I pay more tax than you do. What I'm pretty certain of, if you're in the U.S., is that the reason I feel I am getting better value for my money is that instead of my government spending a huge (and increasing! Thanks Donald) fraction of those tax dollars on things that I don't use and never see the benefits of (military, prisons), they spend those dollars on things my family and I use all the time like the health system and subsidised day care.
In terms of federal taxes I pay about $30k in income tax per year, and about $2k goods and services tax.
I receive about $30 per week in government rebate (means tested) for my kids' childcare costs.
$32,000 - $1,560 > 0
You're wrong
All your points are excellent, and I agree with them, but they justify only a scepticism of U.S. government efficiency and spending priorities, and don't explain the general revulsion at the concept of taxation. Although everywhere these days "tax" is becoming a dirty word in politics, to the great detriment of intelligent policy discourse. Always always it is politicised spending programs (defence, law and order) that get the attention, and the fiscal conservatives grudgingly buy in to these programs often against all evidence and financial sanity, as the price of powersharing with the ideological conservatives. Revenue programs are boring, hard to sell, and easy marks for FUD. Consequence - magical thinking of the first order, that you can have your cake and eat it too.
and lastly, because if everyone pays their rightful share, each individual can pay less. This is not about "extra" taxation, or taxing "3, 4, 5" times, but simply applying the same rules everyone. It is amusing to me that you assume that everyone in the world has the same allergic reaction to paying taxes that you do, because you assume that everyone else in the world shares the same jaundiced view of government and the social contract that many of you do - not just those on the libertarian fringe either, it seems, but reg'lar folks who rather unbelievably to me and many in my country, elected a president that publicly brags about paying little or no taxes. In Australia a political campaign would be dead in the water after such an admission, - the "obligation to shareholders blah blah blah" argument being self-serving bullshit in the case of a privately-held company like Trump Organization anyhow - because although we're not the fair and equitable nation we once were there's a pretty strong feeling that our obligations must balance our privileges. Of which we have many. As it happens I don't think GST or other consumption taxes that this kind of payment system will help with tracking are the best kind of tax, but they're not entirely regressive either. For mine, a single, universal no-exemption financial transaction tax is the way to go.
... and mud in the eye of greedy corporations, just like Trumpty dumpty promised... right? I can't wait to see more such tremendous initiatives from Pai.
Oh, FFS I tried. You really are obtuse. My point, made tersely in my original response to Katko and pertaining directly to the topic of the OP, elaborated on with examples after you came white-knighting in here, being that Julian Assange is a dick - prone to behaving in a sanctimonious, hypocritical, cowardly fashion - said nothing whatever about wikileaks but is indeed largely predicated on accepting the claim that "Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business". So just keep repeating it. Either wikileaks is a dumb clearing-house or wikileaks is a legitimate publisher. If the former, Assange is at best some kind of unusually self-aggrandizing but otherwise tangential media commentator, guilty in this case only of lying about his willingness to trade himself for Manning - but if the latter, he's responsible for the at best shoddy job and terrible lapses of judgement and at worst the utterly venal nature of wikileaks' editorial policy - the failure to protect the innocent, the failure to champion let alone act on journalistic principles of fairness, independence and accountability, the threat to use information withheld for purposes of damage or retaliation etc. etc. Give me a good old fashioned partisan hack any day over the smooth untroubled hypocrite who believes he acts on principle. /communication
Again, no. Concern trolling is defined by the intent to disrupt the discourse by falsely representing one's motivations, not by the simple presence of a clause stating that "I don't believe x anymore" - particularly when the statement as in this case was a simple, if heated refutation of the stupid claim that "everyone used to believe in x until a week ago, so anyone who says they don't believe in it now is an American sockpuppet". But I think you know that, you just enjoy calling people names. If you really thought I were a troll, aren't you a little old to be feeding the likes of me?
What, like in a little black book or something? That sounds kind of authoritarian.
And your failure to address the substance of a literally a single one of the points I made shows just how empty your argument is. Except it's not really argument is it, it's just name-calling informed by anarcho-syndicalist dogmatism - or somesuch drivel - tossed off without a thought. You don't have to stick to the party line on every bloody thing you know, you're allowed to have your own thoughts. Or a debate, with someone who probably agrees with you on more positions than not.
You just gave the definition of a concern troll.
Not really, no, given the topic of the OP and the ludicrous assertions in the post I was responding to that essentially claimed all criticism of Assange had sprung up in the last week from "an [sic] US army of armchair warriors". But don't let facts and context get in the way when you're on troll roll, eh?
Wow. If I end up saying something stupid, I don't make a point of referencing the stupidity later on:
I very happily stand by my judgement and comments. You on the other hand seem to be suffering butthurt because... I don't know, your idol turned out to have feet of clay? That's ok, It happens to everyone, but you'll grow out of it. Leaktivism will (hopefully) survive Assange the Dick.
Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business.
Yes that really is the issue right there, isn't it? Because either wikileaks is a publisher, and Julian is editor-in-chief and responsible for policy, or it's a dumb pastebin/liveleaks type dumping ground and what role does that leave for him? And when you have the editor/figurehead/sometime-saint on the one hand saying that wikileaks' policy is fighting for openness and justice, even offering to sacrifice his own limited freedom to obtain clemency for Manning, and then on the other hand acting not only in a blatantly partisan fashion - remember wikileaks' criticism of Panama papers? The October surprise? Threats to release personal details of journalists families? but straight out in cowardly bad faith - no wikileaks material on Putin at all, no follow through on the Manning quid pro quo - then you have right there an enormous, flaming, king-size hypocrite.
2) Russian handlers? That's so stupid it's not worth responding to.
Indulge me and my stupidity, and respond anyway. Before you do, how about actually read the link in my old stupid comment to an eyewitness account from a Russian dissident, also look up the definitions of "mouthpiece" and "stooge". The best assets don't even ask to be paid in vodka or big macs, they do it for free because they've got their own motivations.
At your next troll meeting, you might suggest that you and your fellow trolls back up these character attacks on Assange, so you can't be dismissed as tools in .002 seconds.
So hurtful.
Nice one :)
What rock have you been living under? Plenty of originally supportive folks decided Assange was a dickhead a long time ago. I myself have been saying so in this very place for years, most recently just two months ago. And I'm not American let alone on some American psyops payroll, I'm an Australian who believes in freedom, whistleblowing and exposing corruption - you know, all the things that wikileaks used to stand for. So you can fuck right off.
Furthermore, the original model was proven wrong, leaving pro-global warmists without even a predictive model to cling to.
Seriously, what the righteous fuck are you talking about? Is your argument going to consist of a series of utterly unsupported assertions, or are you ever going to back up this shit with citations?
Oh, and I do read the journals, and know how to interpret the results - I'm a physics PhD so better than you, I almost guarantee it - and that plus the fact that I have kids and care about the world they are going to inherit is what made me and makes me passionate about the subject, not some fucking shill with an agenda in a Youtube video. Look, it occurs to me now from your language that you're actually 16 years old, in which case I forgive you, and suggest you get an actual education and stop looking at Youtube so much. Otherwise, again, grow up.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that a link to a Youtube video of a self-published and self-publicising "mens movement" crank interviewing a liar and fossil-fuel industry shill is a scientific citation? I had something more traditional in mind - you know, links to original peer-reviewed research.
I retract my previous assertion. Folks like you aren't remotely interested in the truth when it might impinge upon your own cuddly childish fantasy world. Grow up.
Please cite this new science. Or are scientific journals now part of the "legacy mainstream media"? People like you give even dumb ignorance a bad name.
No friend, you are flat-out wrong. No such debunking has taken place (care to provide even one citation?). Global temperatures have indeed risen in the last hundred years, and faster in the last 50 than in all of recorded history. See https://xkcd.com/1732/ for an excellent easy-to-read chart. Given even optimistic scenarios more rise is already unavoidably locked in. Rising temperatures caused by human emissions is a real effect, is unprecedented in its speed compared to natural variation, and is a big problem.
I'm not sure who you're charging with hypocrisy, but as someone who thought the Occupy movement at best quixotic and at worst simplistic, self-indulgent, and borderline antisemitic, I'm certainly not going to wear that one. The problem here, as with every one of Trump's positions, is that he's consistently proven himself shamelessly willing to both contradict himself without apology and also to play the man ("bankers") and not the ball ("the banking system"), appealing to both naked prejudice as well as legitimate grievance. And that delegitimizes his presidency, morally if not legally: until recently it's been an almost universally accepted if unspoken rule in American politics that you don't appeal to bigotry just to win. If both sides agree to play by that rule then neither political side gains an advantage, and society wins because repugnant beliefs are marginalized. Sure, racists are gonna vote anyway, but if a racist card isn't on the table then they're gonna vote on the real issues, as they should, and may the best candidate win. But under the new Trump rules, apparently it's ok to appeal to bigots directly. Sure, you walk back your initial extreme position later, and collect the votes of plenty of decent folks, but never exactly disown the original one. And happily pocket the original hater votes too, and win.
Lots of Trump voters here saying this victory wasn't all about hatred, racism and sexism. I agree; 49% of American voters can't be hateful racists, boastful sexual predators, or Putin apologists for that matter. But maybe 2% are, or 3% or 5%, and I know who they voted for, because Donald encouraged them, and never disowned them. And if he needed those votes to win, well then he didn't deserve it. Remember what those exact same folks said about Muslims, that not all Muslims are terrorists but 100% of terrorists are Muslim (which was never true, but anyway)? Well, now we know that not all Trump voters are Klan members but 100% of Klan members were certainly Trump voters, so they're all tarnished in my books until I hear some loud and heartfelt repudiation of every fucked-up thing Trump ever said. But I'm not holding my breath.
No.
Yes, this was republished today from wikileaks twitter account, trying desperately not to look like bad guys now that they've played a hand in getting Trump in. But it's barely news, let alone scandalous. It's a perfectly legitimate strategy that I'm 100% certain the Republicans followed too (If you want amateur examples from this very forum, look back at all the faux-love Bernie got from Trumpeters like Okian Warrior et al, once it became clear that Hilary was DNC choice - a pure divide-and-conquer play). If you want real hard-core sanctimonious apologia from wikileaks though you should check out Assange's piece here. To summarize: "I only publishes whats I gets and my Russian handlers didn't give me anything damaging on Trump, so... I no publish anything". If you think that Russian handlers thing is a stretch, read what Nadya Tolokno has to say about it.
Ahahahahahaha... good one! He hasn't even picked up the keys yet and the excuses have started already! "It was like this when I got it!" "The other guy reversed into me!" "Some damn kids took it for a joyride!" The R's will have presidency and both houses and you STILL want to lower expectations for success because... "the Fed's bubble?" Don't forget the Jewish bankers, and illegal Mexicans, and I dunno, why not the liberal media too. They're all out there right now, working against America's success, just to spite Trump voters. How about we judge the guy at the end of his term by the same big-kids standards that every other president has been judged... on his record. I'll check back with you in four years. Best of luck.
Well, ignorant wealthy old white dude wins US presidency on the back of exaggerated hopes-and-fears based campaign... I don't really see what's surprising or new here. Appalling, certainly. Surprising, no.
You make some accurate and yet irrelevant rhetorical criticism while missing (or ignoring) the point. Consider responding directly to your interlocutor's arguments with a less patronizing, more emotive style, I think you'll find people are less likely to mistake you for an asshat.
Coming from the exact same group of people that threw the old buggy-whip makers argument in the face of cab drivers, this is too much. Yep, times change alright: and now they've changed against you. Seriously, what did you expect from Über?. And, you know, it's not like it's been a big secret that this was the long term plan.
Dear drivers;
Thank you for funding our autonomous vehicle research. Bye now.
Yours very sincerely,
T K
Point the first: this is a non-sequitor. Once again, you're trying to claim it's primarily technical issues with the software, and I'm making the point that you just don't like Larry Wall. He's just not *one of us*. Why no gentleman would take swipes at Python's one-true-way.
Ascribing particular states of mind to me might well make your points easier for you to make, but it doesn't make them any good. I don't dislike Larry Wall — I've never met him — although I certainly think he says some silly things, and I don't care at all for the language that he wrote. And although I like Python I haven't used it in my day job for several years now; my workplace is a Groovy/Java/Scala shop.
If you were actually someone in management, would you listen to someone like yourself? Why?
Because I understand that despite what you seem to think, the technical challenges involved in language choice for larger software projects are about 1% "does the syntax of language x allow me to do y in this particularly neat way?" and 99% "how many keen programmers skilled in language x do I have/can I attract right now? how quickly can I bring a keen programmer unskilled in x up to speed? how performant, reliable and documented is the core language? how performant, reliable and documented are the 3rd-party libraries available for my problem domain? is there good 3rd party support in the form of testing, build tools, CI, IDE's, profiling tools, version control integration? will my codebase be maintainable by the current crew let alone new hires in 1 year? 5 years? 10?". Honestly if you think Perl is a legit contender in any of those fields against any of the language offerings from Oracle, Microsoft, Apple or Google you really need to get out more.
In the obvious trivial way all Turing-complete languages are "technically" equivalent in the limited sense that you want that word to mean, so there's really no point wasting time having the argument I imagine you want to have with me that goes like this: me: "oh, but Perl doesn't have such-and-such a feature" you: "of COURSE it does, you just cross the index and middle fingers of your left hand and recite the last verse of Genesis backwards!". I imagine I could have the same argument with a bash guru. FWIW even ignoring the to-my-eye horrendous syntax, the fact that for 25 years Perl evangelists have sung the praises of a language that has had such (ahem) eccentricities as braindead function declarations, lets-have-dynamic-typing-but-also-sigils, bolt-on-OO, a toy REPL, "my this our that" namespacing wtf, awful multidimensional data structures, idiosyncratic libraries ((badly) parsing XML to native datatypes, really?), ugly reference syntax (beating even C++ for homeliness, a miracle!), all the time hilariously making a big song-and-dance about "Easy things are easy" and "the principle of least astonishment" does not to my mind inspire confidence that those folks actually know what any other languages look like. 'Easy' isn't having a character-saving shortcut for some marginal use-case, it's having a language transparent enough that I get excited about the results and not how I got there. And that to me is the kicker - with all the language choices out there now, why are there so few significant new non-hobby projects being started in Perl? Clue... the answer is not "because kids are all stupid these days".