So I must have been just dreaming when I thought I remembered zipping from London to Paris in just over two hours and sending emails from under the Atlantic seabed.
Europeans paid dearly for that: the Chunnel had massive cost overruns and was massively subsidized. European railroads also continue to be subsidized. And the same is going to happen in California (if the project even gets completed).
In effect, the peasants living around Europe are paying taxes so that the courtiers, intellectuals, and bureaucrats in the European capitals can zip comfortably between their palaces.
Sadly, I believe that Trump and many of the people he has placed in key positions in his cabinet are surveillance state supporters. This is sadly a bi-partisan issue.
I agree, that's the most likely outcome.
Still, the fact that Trump keeps picking fights with the intelligence services and has said that he wants to scale them back offers a glimmer of hope.
And the post-election professions of nearly unconditional love of Democrats for the intelligence services and the surveillance state means their mask has slipped, and they hopefully can't put it back on again in the age of YouTube. I think being able to view Hillary's repeated liying online contributed a great deal to her defeat.
At over 350,000 packages, the npm registry contains more than double the next most populated package registry
There is such a thing as "too big" for package repositories: at some point, the benefit of being able to find packages for obscure uses is outweighed by the cost of having to sift through endless lists of redundant packages, the incompatibilities arising from many people using incompatible frameworks, and the inability to tell easily whether a given package works well. In JavaScript, that's compounded by the extremely loose type system and error checking.
You can buy a Raspberry Pi for about $50, and that's the equivalent of a good desktop computer from a few years ago that cost more than $1000. In large part, that's because there is almost no labor involved in making a Raspberry Pi. Did that "severely hit people's ability to buy goods"? Of course not. As things get cheaper to make, people either build more complex (and hence more expensive) things, or you don't need as much money to live.
The real reason the cost of living keeps going up is because (1) people consume much more than they used to and (2) government mandates, price fixing, and regulation.
With a median household income of $40,581, millennials earn 20 percent less than boomers did at the same stage of life, despite being better educated
No, it's not "despite being better educated", it is because being better educated. Millennials lost 4-10 years of earnings and earnings growth relative to people who started working right out of highschool. For many college majors, the gain in post-college earnings isn't worth the cost.
The other significant influence is that all the employer mandates, healthcare, insurance, and benefits come out of salaries. Healthcare costs alone likely account for a large chunk of the earnings gap.
Nazism were not in any way shape or form based on the progressive tradition. In fact, it was as diametrically opposed to it as you could possibly get.
By the way, let's be clear here:
Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
Would you agree with that?
The core ideology of the Nazis was that of eugenics; that is, the policy of encouraging humans with desirable traits to reproduce, and preventing humans with undesirable traits from reproducing; that is what justified Nazi expansionism, racial segregation, and genocides. Eugenics was a widely accepted scientific discipline both in the US and in Europe, and based on (then) recent work in human genetics and evolution.
The people who actually opposed eugenics did so on moral grounds: Christians, conservatives, and libertarians at the time (as today) argued against eugenics and segregation on the basis of individual liberties, not utility or progress.
So, why don't you try to make a good progressive argument against eugenics; that is, in what way is eugenics "diametrically opposed" to the defining progressive principle of applying science and reason in government for the purpose of achieving human progress?
Jim Crow laws were not the work of progressives. The whole point of them was to thwart the progressive agenda and preserve the status quo. They were about as regressive as you could possibly get.
Science at the time said that black were genetically inferiors to whites, and progressives saw segregation and eugenics as the rational response. That is, segregation was "the progressive agenda" at the time, and Jim Crow laws were consistent with it. http://bfy.tw/9SHj
Nazism were not in any way shape or form based on the progressive tradition.
Again, you're disputing basic historical facts. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response; my parents lived through this and were subjected to the "scientific" studies of Nazi scientists. You need to read up on your history, instead of political propaganda.
No one is ever required to disclose their race, religion, or sexual orientation. While various questionnaires may ask about them, you are always permitted to leave them blank.
People are even permitted to lie on them, which I and others certainly do. In addition, these questions don't have an objective, verifiable answer: although for some people, the answer is clear, for many it isn't; race or sexual orientation simply aren't well-defined categories.
Which then raises the question: given that the information is not verifiable, has no objective meaning, and is not statistically representative, how can it possibly be used to accuse and penalize companies for discrimination? Obviously, the current situation can't stand: either you end up with government-defined categories and mandatory responses, or you can't use this data at all as part of law enforcement.
You still are totally avoiding the main subject of this conversation: your claim that anti-discrimination laws are harmful to peace, prosperity, equality, and liberty. I have asked you again and again to provide evidence of that, and you have yet to offer a single shred of evidence
You have already cited the evidence yourself, you just refuse to see it. If you look at economic progress, there was no obvious change in slope when the civil rights act was passed, and that is for all provisions of the act.
The one thing where you see a big change in social indicators around the civil rights act is illegitimacy, and that's a change for the worse.
So, even minimal fact checking tells you that the civil rights act had no great practical effect on major indicators of progress for African Americans. Its repeal of racist laws and government policies was a moral victory, but beyond that it is massive government interference with no clear benefit.
If you want more analysis, I have told you to read the works of Thomas Sowell as a starting point (there are many other books, but he is an engaging writer, and has credibility and personal experience).
The problem isn't that I have failed to give you evidence, the problem is that you have shown yourself time and again to be resistant to it. Instead of reading up on the history of progressivism, scientific racism, eugenics, or reading up on criticism of affirmative action, you simply and uncritically dig up links to articles that restate your own misconceptions. And, yeah, it's not surprising that you can find such links: obviously, a lot of people have the same erroneous beliefs that you do.
To combat the robot revolution, the European Parliament's legal affairs committee has proposed that robots be equipped with emergency "kill switches" to prevent them from causing excessive damage. Legislators
Can we get kill switches for legislators as well, please?
No, I didn't "equate" them, I linked them. That is, US progressive ideology was the basis for many of the Nazi beliefs on race. It should be obvious to anyone that progressives and Nazis are distinct political ideologies, just like "democratic socialism" and "communism" are distinct ideologies, even though they are linked.
Laws have made distinctions based on race [wikipedia.org] for far more than a century. That isn't something the progressive movement invented,
And I didn't claim they "invented" it; I said they have "consistently advocated" it.
Discrimination existed on a massive scale through large parts of the U.S.
Yes: what do you expect after decades of government-mandated segregation and racist government policy and propaganda?
And contrary to your claim that "anti-discrimination laws don't work", it was actually [bloomberg.com] very [bu.edu] effective [ed.gov].
The Civil Rights Act primarily ended government discrimination; private anti-discrimination laws were a small component. And when economists looked at this (e.g., Sowell's "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality"), they found that "the advances made in the decade preceding the passage of the Civil Rights Act were as substantial as the progress in the ten years following its passage".
when black people were forbidden to live in white neighborhoods, attend white schools, use the same restrooms as white people, or sit in the front of the bus
Yes, and those injustices were created by laws, not private businesses, as you acknowledge by using the term "forbidden". And those disgusting, racist laws had been primarily supported by progressives and progressive ideology.
Enforcing anti-discrimination laws involves checking to see if people are discriminating. And to check, you need to collect data. And collecting data about race is evil! Therefore, those laws are evil,
Forcing me to disclose my sexual orientation, race, and religion to my employer and the federal government is unacceptable, no matter what justification you come up with. Who I sleep with or what I believe in is neither my employer's nor the government's business. And the potential for future abuse is just too great.
Geez, talk about creating a "Muslim registry". You are actually seriously defending creating a registry of the race, religion, and sexual orientation of every employee in the country!
Furthermore, if you ask this gay atheist immigrant on an official form about his race, religion, and sexual orientation, my answer will be "white heterosexual Christian". Only a fool would give a different response, even if privileged and pampered American lefties don't understand why.
FFS - Rosa Parks did not get to negotiate a contract where one of the terms was sitting at the back of the bus.
Neither did Google. Terms of federal contracts are a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, just like the segregation laws that forced Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. Yeah, I chose the analogy carefully.
Furthermore, nothing in Google's contract said that they needed "to provide names, contact information, job history and salary history details that the government has requested for its employees" as well as personally identifiable information on "race, religion, sexual orientation, gender". That is an overly broad, and chilling, interpretation of the contractual terms. That is, when Google signed the contract, they had no way of knowing that the Obama administration would make such a ludicrous demand.
How utterly disconnected from reality do you have to be to ever think that it is a good idea to let the government go to companies and say "Please give us a list of all the homosexuals that you employ, together with their addresses and salary history." And you just keep doubling down on your stupid and indefensible position.
I'm advocating that people stick to their word and you are not. That's all it comes down to. I'll meet you "banality of evil" with your undermining of the very core of civilization.
You mean like Rosa Parks "undermined the very core of civilization" when she paid for her bus ticket and then ignored rules on segregation? When Southern businesses that operated under government licenses decided to disregard racist government policies? When bars allowed us homosexuals to openly engage in our disgusting habits in public? I have no doubt that you believe that breaking one's word like that "undermines the very core of civilization" as you understand it; after all, you'd like uppity homosexuals and blacks to be kept track off in federal databases, supposedly for our own good.
Of course, there is no evidence that Google is not sticking to their word. After all, they collect this data and proudly parade it around every year. Their failure to report is almost certainly just a misunderstanding. I just wish the had the backbone to tell the federal government to fuck off.
This is a democracy, and the majority has decided they want anti-discrimination laws.
Democracy isn't synonymous with majoritarianism. Furthermore, our political process doesn't even represent the majority of the people, but instead a kind of oligarchy. The form of democracy that the US was actually founded to be is one of enumerated government powers, and very close to a form of government that protects negative rights and does not attempt to impose positive rights, by law and Constitution.
ou're welcome to disagree with them, but it's the government's job to enforce the actual laws
Yes, and I am disagreeing with it. I have been saying consistently that these laws are wrong, not that the enforcement of them is illegitimate. You keep arguing a straw man in order to deflect from the dangerous and discriminative nature of these laws. That is, given that we have deteriorated into a majoritarian-oligarchic form of democracy, people need to understand the harm they are doing by imposing these laws, even if they are well-meaning.
"Some really evil people collected data on race, so anyone who collects data on race is evil."
Once government has collected data on race, religion, and sexuality, it stays in government databases forever. Collecting such data is intrinsically dangerous because governments change in unexpected ways. If you aren't familiar with historical examples, then just look at the last election.
Second, we're not talking about "anyone", we're talking about the same movement, the progressive movement. The progressive movement has consistently advocated categorizing people by race and make racial distinctions in government policies for more than a century. It was wrong and harmful a century ago and it's wrong and harmful today. It's the same core error then and now, namely that "race" is a valid category for objective studies and policy. And the very same progressive movement historically transformed into Nazism in Germany. So, the connection between the people who want to collect this data now and the "very evil people" isn't accidental, it is ideological and historical.
That is very clearly your problem here where you are advocating harm to others.
You are advocating that people who are already subject to discrimination declare ourselves to the government. Even all other issues aside, once government has that data, it stays in their databases forever, for any crook, blackmailer, and fascist who comes along to hurt vulnerable people. Did you notice what happened in this election? How utterly ignorant of real life discrimination do you have to be to advocate such idiocy? You do not want a government record that says "sexual orientation: homosexual, religion: atheist", believe me.
So, we declare ourselves to be straight and Christian, only to have the big jackboot of government then stomp down on our employers for supposedly discriminating against us because, heck, people like you aren't satisfied until every homosexual, every black man, every Jew, and every atheist is registered in a federal database.
Thank you for this object lesson in the banality of evil and how progressivism leads to fascism.
(Of course, the policies you advocate that this data be collected for are themselves racist, homophobic, and harmful as well, but understanding that clearly exceeds your ability to think and reason.)
I've never made a secret of who I am and why I take the positions I do. Your problem is that you are ignorant and you just aren't listening. And in your ignorance, it is you and people like you who advocate making victims out of other people, and you are too ignorant to even understand what you are doing.
Of course your vitriol hits all the usual notes we have come to expect from progressives: feigned tolerance in return for support of the statist and authoritarian agenda. But when we don't play ball or once we have served our purpose, we get abused and eventually sent to the camps.
Anybody who has experienced actual discrimination is painfully aware what utter folly it is to tell the government anything about your sex life or any other attribute that periodically gets people rounded up and killed, no matter what good deeds it promises in return. Of course, since to you, social justice is just a little exercise in social signaling, you don't know and you don't care.
I grew up with massive discrimination and was barred from most jobs because of my sexual orientation; that's why I emigrated and came to the US. Believe me, I have an excellent first hand understanding of what job discrimination actually means. I don't want government dictating how private companies operate because it hurts the very people it ostensibly protects. I'm sorry you are too ignorant and bigoted to understand that, but that's really your problem. Your ignorance does not excuse your rudeness, however.
supporting shared memory is a facility which comes from the operating system
Yes, the OS supports shared memory; it's Python's support that is poor.
No gains in performance come from reading/writing to memory shared between threads bound to different cores vs system shared memory accessed by processes running on different cores.
That's bullshit. Numerical and AI applications benefit greatly from sharing memory that way, compared to other IPC mechanisms.
Python-the-language is fine. The problem is that the Python-the-CPython-implementation sucks: it's slow, doesn't support threading, and has a lousy native code interface.
If I had to choose between the aforementioned reforms of the current system and legalizing organ sale, I'd probably choose the latter because it will make bigger waves[1], leading to both reforms and increased awareness. But we don't have to choose. Arguing for the abolition of the public charity option sabotages your own case,
How is arguing for property rights in organs arguing "for the abolition of the public charity option"? Obviously, if you have property rights in your organs, you have the right to leave them to any public organization you like. What you're saying is that there should be a default for intestate deaths, which is fine.
I still consider myself a libertarian of sorts, but this political orientation will remain doomed to irrelevance so long as this tedious, predictable zealotry is adhered to.
The cause of liberty seems to be doing well: governments all over the world are losing power over the people.
If you choose to interpret them differently you have that right, but the Supreme Court says otherwise
Yes, SCOTUS has been using the Commerce Clause to justify such legislation, but SCOTUS decisions are not always logically consistent.
I think you have a particular definition of "liberty" which says it can only be taken away by the government, not by anyone else. You have the freedom to do anything you want, even if it restricts someone else's freedom, yes?
You are grappling with the distinction between negative rights and positive rights. I believe everybody has negative rights, and nobody has positive rights.
Of course, by the same logic we shouldn't restrict murderers' right to kill whoever they want.
A murderer violates a negative right; negative rights ought to be protected.
and then when I ask to see it, they invariably say, "I can't be bothered to show it to you
I told you: you need to read up on "the history of progressivism, eugenics and scientific racism in the US and about how racism and government racial categorizations were used in Nazi Germany." There is lots of excellent literature on it; I am not going to repeat the arguments here.
Slashdot Mirror
Europeans paid dearly for that: the Chunnel had massive cost overruns and was massively subsidized. European railroads also continue to be subsidized. And the same is going to happen in California (if the project even gets completed).
In effect, the peasants living around Europe are paying taxes so that the courtiers, intellectuals, and bureaucrats in the European capitals can zip comfortably between their palaces.
Excessive zoning regulations (including minimum square footage requirements), government-granted monopolies, expensive and lengthy approval process, rent subsidies, mortgage interest deductions, subsidies for developers and infrastructure, and rent control, all drive up housing expenses.
Note the irony that many policies that are ostensibly implemented to make housing "more affordable" actually end up making housing more expensive.
I agree, that's the most likely outcome.
Still, the fact that Trump keeps picking fights with the intelligence services and has said that he wants to scale them back offers a glimmer of hope.
And the post-election professions of nearly unconditional love of Democrats for the intelligence services and the surveillance state means their mask has slipped, and they hopefully can't put it back on again in the age of YouTube. I think being able to view Hillary's repeated liying online contributed a great deal to her defeat.
And by that he is referring to the massive expansion of the surveillance state under President Obama?
https://www.google.com/search?...
Shocking indeed. Even more shocking that this was supported by Democrats and Democratic candidates. Hopefully, a new president will change direction.
One way to achieve this is through stricter languages. Maybe limiting oneself to TypeScript modules is a good start?
There is such a thing as "too big" for package repositories: at some point, the benefit of being able to find packages for obscure uses is outweighed by the cost of having to sift through endless lists of redundant packages, the incompatibilities arising from many people using incompatible frameworks, and the inability to tell easily whether a given package works well. In JavaScript, that's compounded by the extremely loose type system and error checking.
You can buy a Raspberry Pi for about $50, and that's the equivalent of a good desktop computer from a few years ago that cost more than $1000. In large part, that's because there is almost no labor involved in making a Raspberry Pi. Did that "severely hit people's ability to buy goods"? Of course not. As things get cheaper to make, people either build more complex (and hence more expensive) things, or you don't need as much money to live.
The real reason the cost of living keeps going up is because (1) people consume much more than they used to and (2) government mandates, price fixing, and regulation.
It means that we need to work half for the same standard of living.
No, it's not "despite being better educated", it is because being better educated. Millennials lost 4-10 years of earnings and earnings growth relative to people who started working right out of highschool. For many college majors, the gain in post-college earnings isn't worth the cost.
The other significant influence is that all the employer mandates, healthcare, insurance, and benefits come out of salaries. Healthcare costs alone likely account for a large chunk of the earnings gap.
By the way, let's be clear here:
Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
Would you agree with that?
The core ideology of the Nazis was that of eugenics; that is, the policy of encouraging humans with desirable traits to reproduce, and preventing humans with undesirable traits from reproducing; that is what justified Nazi expansionism, racial segregation, and genocides. Eugenics was a widely accepted scientific discipline both in the US and in Europe, and based on (then) recent work in human genetics and evolution.
The people who actually opposed eugenics did so on moral grounds: Christians, conservatives, and libertarians at the time (as today) argued against eugenics and segregation on the basis of individual liberties, not utility or progress.
So, why don't you try to make a good progressive argument against eugenics; that is, in what way is eugenics "diametrically opposed" to the defining progressive principle of applying science and reason in government for the purpose of achieving human progress?
Science at the time said that black were genetically inferiors to whites, and progressives saw segregation and eugenics as the rational response. That is, segregation was "the progressive agenda" at the time, and Jim Crow laws were consistent with it. http://bfy.tw/9SHj
Again, you're disputing basic historical facts. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response; my parents lived through this and were subjected to the "scientific" studies of Nazi scientists. You need to read up on your history, instead of political propaganda .
People are even permitted to lie on them, which I and others certainly do. In addition, these questions don't have an objective, verifiable answer: although for some people, the answer is clear, for many it isn't; race or sexual orientation simply aren't well-defined categories.
Which then raises the question: given that the information is not verifiable, has no objective meaning, and is not statistically representative, how can it possibly be used to accuse and penalize companies for discrimination? Obviously, the current situation can't stand: either you end up with government-defined categories and mandatory responses, or you can't use this data at all as part of law enforcement.
You have already cited the evidence yourself, you just refuse to see it. If you look at economic progress, there was no obvious change in slope when the civil rights act was passed, and that is for all provisions of the act.
Here are high school graduation rates: no effect of the civil rights act
Ditto for median household income: no effect of the civil rights act.
The one thing where you see a big change in social indicators around the civil rights act is illegitimacy, and that's a change for the worse.
So, even minimal fact checking tells you that the civil rights act had no great practical effect on major indicators of progress for African Americans. Its repeal of racist laws and government policies was a moral victory, but beyond that it is massive government interference with no clear benefit.
If you want more analysis, I have told you to read the works of Thomas Sowell as a starting point (there are many other books, but he is an engaging writer, and has credibility and personal experience).
The problem isn't that I have failed to give you evidence, the problem is that you have shown yourself time and again to be resistant to it. Instead of reading up on the history of progressivism, scientific racism, eugenics, or reading up on criticism of affirmative action, you simply and uncritically dig up links to articles that restate your own misconceptions. And, yeah, it's not surprising that you can find such links: obviously, a lot of people have the same erroneous beliefs that you do.
Can we get kill switches for legislators as well, please?
No, I didn't "equate" them, I linked them. That is, US progressive ideology was the basis for many of the Nazi beliefs on race. It should be obvious to anyone that progressives and Nazis are distinct political ideologies, just like "democratic socialism" and "communism" are distinct ideologies, even though they are linked.
And I didn't claim they "invented" it; I said they have "consistently advocated" it.
Yes: what do you expect after decades of government-mandated segregation and racist government policy and propaganda?
The Civil Rights Act primarily ended government discrimination; private anti-discrimination laws were a small component. And when economists looked at this (e.g., Sowell's "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality"), they found that "the advances made in the decade preceding the passage of the Civil Rights Act were as substantial as the progress in the ten years following its passage".
Yes, and those injustices were created by laws, not private businesses, as you acknowledge by using the term "forbidden". And those disgusting, racist laws had been primarily supported by progressives and progressive ideology.
Forcing me to disclose my sexual orientation, race, and religion to my employer and the federal government is unacceptable, no matter what justification you come up with. Who I sleep with or what I believe in is neither my employer's nor the government's business. And the potential for future abuse is just too great.
Geez, talk about creating a "Muslim registry". You are actually seriously defending creating a registry of the race, religion, and sexual orientation of every employee in the country!
Furthermore, if you ask this gay atheist immigrant on an official form about his race, religion, and sexual orientation, my answer will be "white heterosexual Christian". Only a fool would give a different response, even if privileged and pampered American lefties don't understand why.
Neither did Google. Terms of federal contracts are a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, just like the segregation laws that forced Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. Yeah, I chose the analogy carefully.
Furthermore, nothing in Google's contract said that they needed "to provide names, contact information, job history and salary history details that the government has requested for its employees" as well as personally identifiable information on "race, religion, sexual orientation, gender". That is an overly broad, and chilling, interpretation of the contractual terms. That is, when Google signed the contract, they had no way of knowing that the Obama administration would make such a ludicrous demand.
How utterly disconnected from reality do you have to be to ever think that it is a good idea to let the government go to companies and say "Please give us a list of all the homosexuals that you employ, together with their addresses and salary history." And you just keep doubling down on your stupid and indefensible position.
Yes, indeed, I selfishly would like the US to remain free, instead of turning into the kind of authoritarian oppressive state I emigrated from.
You mean like Rosa Parks "undermined the very core of civilization" when she paid for her bus ticket and then ignored rules on segregation? When Southern businesses that operated under government licenses decided to disregard racist government policies? When bars allowed us homosexuals to openly engage in our disgusting habits in public? I have no doubt that you believe that breaking one's word like that "undermines the very core of civilization" as you understand it; after all, you'd like uppity homosexuals and blacks to be kept track off in federal databases, supposedly for our own good.
Of course, there is no evidence that Google is not sticking to their word. After all, they collect this data and proudly parade it around every year. Their failure to report is almost certainly just a misunderstanding. I just wish the had the backbone to tell the federal government to fuck off.
Democracy isn't synonymous with majoritarianism. Furthermore, our political process doesn't even represent the majority of the people, but instead a kind of oligarchy. The form of democracy that the US was actually founded to be is one of enumerated government powers, and very close to a form of government that protects negative rights and does not attempt to impose positive rights, by law and Constitution.
Yes, and I am disagreeing with it. I have been saying consistently that these laws are wrong, not that the enforcement of them is illegitimate. You keep arguing a straw man in order to deflect from the dangerous and discriminative nature of these laws. That is, given that we have deteriorated into a majoritarian-oligarchic form of democracy, people need to understand the harm they are doing by imposing these laws, even if they are well-meaning.
Once government has collected data on race, religion, and sexuality, it stays in government databases forever. Collecting such data is intrinsically dangerous because governments change in unexpected ways. If you aren't familiar with historical examples, then just look at the last election.
Second, we're not talking about "anyone", we're talking about the same movement, the progressive movement. The progressive movement has consistently advocated categorizing people by race and make racial distinctions in government policies for more than a century. It was wrong and harmful a century ago and it's wrong and harmful today. It's the same core error then and now, namely that "race" is a valid category for objective studies and policy. And the very same progressive movement historically transformed into Nazism in Germany. So, the connection between the people who want to collect this data now and the "very evil people" isn't accidental, it is ideological and historical.
You are advocating that people who are already subject to discrimination declare ourselves to the government. Even all other issues aside, once government has that data, it stays in their databases forever, for any crook, blackmailer, and fascist who comes along to hurt vulnerable people. Did you notice what happened in this election? How utterly ignorant of real life discrimination do you have to be to advocate such idiocy? You do not want a government record that says "sexual orientation: homosexual, religion: atheist", believe me.
So, we declare ourselves to be straight and Christian, only to have the big jackboot of government then stomp down on our employers for supposedly discriminating against us because, heck, people like you aren't satisfied until every homosexual, every black man, every Jew, and every atheist is registered in a federal database.
Thank you for this object lesson in the banality of evil and how progressivism leads to fascism.
(Of course, the policies you advocate that this data be collected for are themselves racist, homophobic, and harmful as well, but understanding that clearly exceeds your ability to think and reason.)
I've never made a secret of who I am and why I take the positions I do. Your problem is that you are ignorant and you just aren't listening. And in your ignorance, it is you and people like you who advocate making victims out of other people, and you are too ignorant to even understand what you are doing.
Of course your vitriol hits all the usual notes we have come to expect from progressives: feigned tolerance in return for support of the statist and authoritarian agenda. But when we don't play ball or once we have served our purpose, we get abused and eventually sent to the camps.
Anybody who has experienced actual discrimination is painfully aware what utter folly it is to tell the government anything about your sex life or any other attribute that periodically gets people rounded up and killed, no matter what good deeds it promises in return. Of course, since to you, social justice is just a little exercise in social signaling, you don't know and you don't care.
I grew up with massive discrimination and was barred from most jobs because of my sexual orientation; that's why I emigrated and came to the US. Believe me, I have an excellent first hand understanding of what job discrimination actually means. I don't want government dictating how private companies operate because it hurts the very people it ostensibly protects. I'm sorry you are too ignorant and bigoted to understand that, but that's really your problem. Your ignorance does not excuse your rudeness, however.
Yes, the OS supports shared memory; it's Python's support that is poor.
That's bullshit. Numerical and AI applications benefit greatly from sharing memory that way, compared to other IPC mechanisms.
Python-the-language is fine. The problem is that the Python-the-CPython-implementation sucks: it's slow, doesn't support threading, and has a lousy native code interface.
How is arguing for property rights in organs arguing "for the abolition of the public charity option"? Obviously, if you have property rights in your organs, you have the right to leave them to any public organization you like. What you're saying is that there should be a default for intestate deaths, which is fine.
The cause of liberty seems to be doing well: governments all over the world are losing power over the people.
Yes, SCOTUS has been using the Commerce Clause to justify such legislation, but SCOTUS decisions are not always logically consistent.
You are grappling with the distinction between negative rights and positive rights. I believe everybody has negative rights, and nobody has positive rights.
A murderer violates a negative right; negative rights ought to be protected.
I told you: you need to read up on "the history of progressivism, eugenics and scientific racism in the US and about how racism and government racial categorizations were used in Nazi Germany." There is lots of excellent literature on it; I am not going to repeat the arguments here.