Most people worry about "future X" mostly to plan, so that part is easy: yes, if you work with computers and want to program, Python is one of the best and most useful first languages you can learn. Yet, at the same time, it has serious limitations. On the other hand, if you want to be a professional, you need to know other languages as well and you need to understand the limitations of Python.
Furthermore, planning for the future, you need to be aware that Python is not a standardized language, that its success is due to one implementation, and that it keeps changing.
The majority of growth comes from political parties who spread disinformation and junk news around election periods. There are more political parties learning from the strategies deployed during Brexit and the U.S. 2016 Presidential election: more campaigns are using bots, junk news, and disinformation to polarize and manipulate voters.
Oxford: "The only way to spread disinformation and junk news should be via billionaire owned media corporations, government propaganda ministries, and privileged highly paid academics in cushy jobs!"
John Maynard Keynes (Cambridge), Charles Eliot (Harvard), Oliver Wendel Holmes Sr. (Harvard), and Woodrow Wilson (Princeton) were racists and proponents of eugenics, and they used their academic credentials to promote that garbage.
Because you're reminding me of this [youtube.com].
I can't answer that question because I don't watch "Infowars".
And Honey, I just want to give everybody health care.
What's stopping you? You can use your vast fortunes to give everybody health care! How many people have you yourself given health care to so far?
As for Small Donations and Membership fees, does this count [google.com] as a "small donation"? Because I think we're using different terms.
The NRA is predominantly financed as a grassroots organization. It then spends that money in order to influence elections. That's the point of a grassroots organization: it turns lots of $35 donations (the average size of the NRA donations, similar to Bernie Sander's average donation size) into a $30 million political force. (Compare that with George Soros's $32 billion astroturfing for Democrats and authoritarian policies.)
(In case you're wondering, I'm not an NRA member and I don't own a gun.)
Ah, yes, you really are so naive that you think there is a magical entity called "the Internet" that exists somewhere above the clouds! You think of modern technology like a five year old thinks about God and Santa Claus.
Welcome to monopoly shitsville where you don't have a viable alternative.
Indeed, monopoly shitsville, courtesy of the FCC, the same organization you want to hand even more power to!
The databases could include those used for immigration enforcement, making parents of immigrant students afraid to send their children to school for fear that they or their children could end up on ICE's radar.
Why would immigrants be afraid of ICE? As an immigrant, you're supposed to carry your green card at all times.
Last but not least, since facial recognition is notoriously inaccurate, "innocent students are likely to be misidentified and punished for things they didn't do."
People aren't convicted based on "the camera says it's John Smith"; rather, the camera says "the person committing the crime might be John Smith" and then real people compare actual photos of John Smith against the pictures taken by the camera.
The worry back in the day was that they were going to shake down Netflixs for a buck (who would then charge customers more).
That is what is supposed to happen. It is the right thing. Guaranteeing that Netflix comes in at the same speed as Comcast's own services means Comcast needs to pay for a lot more hardware and peering to route Netflix traffic onto their network to any potential user. Those costs ought to be paid for exclusively by Netflix subscribers, but under net neutrality, they are born by all Comcast subscribers. Contrary to the naive view of networks that you seem to have, when data moves from point A to point B, it makes a great deal of difference where point A and point B are and how much data moves between them.
They were big enough that an uneven playing field would HELP them. A level playing field, a neutral Internet, gives little players a chance.
Why would telecoms even bother "blocking little players"? By definition, little players don't have a lot of money. Note that none of your examples involve "little players".
And why should I be forced to subsidize "little players" anyway? What do I care whether you can start a startup?
But in actuality, even if "net neutrality" were justified in terms of helping little players, that is not the primary thing it does. The primary thing net neutrality does is help a bunch of big players whose business model is built on a world in which traffic is difficult to account for.
Comcast from blocking bittorrent [freepress.net].
Yes, so? Why should low cost consumer plans offer high outgoing data volumes?
AT&T fucking with VoIP to help their own business.
Don't buy from AT&T then.
Comcast favoring Microsoft's 360 traffic by not counting it towards data caps
Oh, the horror! People get stuff for free! Next thing you are going to ask for "software neutrality" under which we are forced to pay the same amount for Ubuntu 18.04 as we are for Windows 10, because neutrality!
Telecoms blocking Google Wallet.
Google is translating their massive near-monopoly into an attempt to dominate online payment systems and that justifies that I am forced to subsidize their efforts. Thanks, but no thanks.
We've done the experiment side-by-side in Germany and Korea: same populations, starting at the same level of development.
We've done the experiment with free market countries turning into socialist countries and failing, in Cuba and Venezuela among many others.
And it's been shown that this isn't just an all-or-nothing effect, but that "levels of freedom relating to use of markets and property rights appear to be driving the causal relationship between economic freedom and growth."
Propagandists and marketers pick brand names for their products that mislead you into thinking that they deliver benefits that they don't actually deliver. So, "net neutrality" is no more about "neutrality" than "Diet Coke" is about dieting.
But NO ONE has ever told me that they actually wish the ISPs could fuck with their traffic just to make a buck.
The major use of net neutrality rules so far has been to prevent ISPs from offering free access to paying partners. People who want to use only Facebook or Google or Netflix might get unlimited usage thrown in with their regular subscription. That is what "fucking with traffic" means: free stuff because ISPs are competing with each other. You don't want that?
I can tell you who doesn't want it: companies like Facebook and Google, who know that in a more competitive market and in a market where they can get charged for pushing their advertising, their margins actually will shrink.
You mean an inexperienced loser whose message is that everybody should live at the expense of tax payers? No, I should think not. Even Democrats used to be too smart and decent to tolerate someone like Bernie.
everybody who runs as a Justice Democrat [justicedemocrats.com]. They've all refused to accept corporate and PAC money
Yes, instead they have been living it up based on money and power they gain from government and their political message is that they want to funnel even more tax payer money to people like themselves; that's even more corrupt.
I mean, in the General when it's too late, ok, but in your _primary_ and you're voting for politicians who openly admit to being bought? Why? Just Why?
Yes, "bought by the NRA", an organization that is primarily funded by small donations and membership fees. And that's also why it is so powerful: it is a true grassroots organization that represents many millions of voters.
Also, the way political donations work, are there ANY politician that have "Financial Ties" to a telecom?
Look at the huge corporate backers of net neutrality: Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. The same corporations are also massive donors to the Democrats. Do you think they are spending all that money out of altruism? Because they want to protect small startups? Don't make me laugh. Are you merely a gullible fool or do you actually work for one of those corporate backers of net neutrality?
EVERYONE wants network neutrality and the only people who are pushing against it are those who are bought and paid for.
No, not everybody wants net neutrality. But obviously, no rational debate is possible with you because you already engage in preemptive ad-hominems. Fortunately, no debate with people like you is even necessary at this point.
[7) Asylum seekers not breaking the law are not separated from their children.] 7) Irrelevant.
It's quite relevant: the state takes over from parents who expose their kids to unusual risks and illegal behavior. That's a principle we apply to citizens, and it is certainly also a principle that applies to people who expose their kids to the risk of illegal migration into the US.
Any adult with kids who doesn't want to be separated should apply for asylum at an entry point. That's the only responsible thing to do.
Trying to sneak into the US illegally with your kids is so irresponsible and dangerous that I think the adults should lose guardianship anyway, all immigration issues aside. American parents have their kids taken away for less.
I don't recall making an opinion, I merely stated a fact. They're the ones taking kids away from parents.... You might want to look in a dictionary to see the difference between the two.
Someone who works in the ICE IT department clearly does not "take kids away from parents" in any sense found in the dictionary.
"These days"? The problems with debates, demagoguery, majoritarianism, elected representatives, and bread-and-circuses have been known since Greek and Roman times.
Yes, indeed, Google shows that there are lots of dumb, uninformed people who believe that Europe is socialist.
No, it is below average, and I would expect the richest nation to be at the top, or at least in the top 10.
That's because your expectations are wrong. For example, beyond $2500/capita/year health care spending, life expectancy does not increase; that's not a US issue, it's true in Europe as well. Years in education and voter turnout are neither a sign of wealth nor a sign of positive outcomes. Etc.
It is under-performing, mostly due to poor right wing policy. We know this because there is a clear pattern between not only successful nations (as per OECD)
The successful nations that are overwhelmingly run by right wing (Christian conservative) governments, you mean?
but even successful states within the US (more left wing states are represented towards the top, more right wings states toward the bottom).
What you see when you look at the US data is that areas governed by Democrats have higher murder rates, higher poverty rates, and higher inequality, and those outcomes are directly attributable to Democratic policies.
In addition, Democrats have changed; they used to lean more towards liberalism, but over the last decade, they increasingly lean socialist (viz Sanders), so you can't judge their current policies by their past performance.
We've already been over this. It's not my problem that you don't understand it.
You have not made a single argument to support the statement that "the US is very rightwing and right extremist". All you have done is repeatedly argued for the supposed benefits of socialism, argued that Western Europe is supposedly socialist, and argued that Western Europe is supposedly doing economically better than the US.
Sure you can: having those kinds of debate is perfectly possible in a nation with limited government and enumerated powers.
I'd be all for someone making communist island and laissez faire island and seeing what happens over the course of several decades, but the logistics of doing it make it practically impossible.
We've done that and the result is always the same: the laissez-faire island does really well, entrepreneurs flee from socialist island to laissez-faire island, and eventually, the disillusioned socialists flee from socialist island to laissez-faire island and try to turn it socialist too. Debate with socialist is pointless. Socialism is the rational choice for stupid people. As socialists take over your country, you fight them, and when that doesn't work anymore, you leave and let them rot in their own filth.
A question like "Are Trump's import tariffs good for the American economy?" could probably fill volumes of economic journals without a definitive answer in sight.
See, and that question starts from the wrong premise that government should do "what is good for the American economy".
Even when we agree on the facts, we disagree on the significance and meaning of the facts or even the overall model or ideology that they fit into
Which is precisely because we should have a debate on models and ideology, not "facts" and utility.
What's really going on here is a misrepresentation of facts, a purposeful twisting of data or omission of data to the contrary in order to support an otherwise-insupportable argument.
No, what is really going on is that you start with the premise that "if policy X can be shown to be 'beneficial', then government is justified in forcing people to comply with policy X". That's an authoritarian and collectivist mindset that I reject.
For example, tariffs cannot be logically argued as economically beneficial so long as the other side can enact counter-tariffs which are equally damaging.
Tariffs are wrong because they infringe on freedom of association and private property. Of course, since you probably don't respect freedom of association and private property, you don't care. That's why you try to go with a utilitarian argument. (And your utilitarian argument isn't even much of an argument,.)
What's really going on here is a misrepresentation of facts,
People who make fact based utilitarian arguments like you do are certainly prone to that. For example, progressives concluded that in order to increase average IQ, they should engage in forced sterilization of low IQ populations. These days, progressives oppose forced sterilizations, but in order to reach that conclusion, they simply deny heritable IQ differences altogether.
The classical liberal arguments are not utilitarian. Tariffs are wrong because they interfere with freedom of association and private property. Forced sterilizations are wrong because they represent aggression against someone's body. Eugenics is wrong because it interferes with freedom of association. Etc. Whether a policy can be argued to be "beneficial" (to who?) is utterly irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people worry about "future X" mostly to plan, so that part is easy: yes, if you work with computers and want to program, Python is one of the best and most useful first languages you can learn. Yet, at the same time, it has serious limitations. On the other hand, if you want to be a professional, you need to know other languages as well and you need to understand the limitations of Python.
Furthermore, planning for the future, you need to be aware that Python is not a standardized language, that its success is due to one implementation, and that it keeps changing.
Kim Kardashian probably generates a lot of Python traffic herself with her python boots.
Oxford: "The only way to spread disinformation and junk news should be via billionaire owned media corporations, government propaganda ministries, and privileged highly paid academics in cushy jobs!"
John Maynard Keynes (Cambridge), Charles Eliot (Harvard), Oliver Wendel Holmes Sr. (Harvard), and Woodrow Wilson (Princeton) were racists and proponents of eugenics, and they used their academic credentials to promote that garbage.
I can't answer that question because I don't watch "Infowars".
What's stopping you? You can use your vast fortunes to give everybody health care! How many people have you yourself given health care to so far?
The NRA is predominantly financed as a grassroots organization. It then spends that money in order to influence elections. That's the point of a grassroots organization: it turns lots of $35 donations (the average size of the NRA donations, similar to Bernie Sander's average donation size) into a $30 million political force. (Compare that with George Soros's $32 billion astroturfing for Democrats and authoritarian policies.)
(In case you're wondering, I'm not an NRA member and I don't own a gun.)
Ah, yes, you really are so naive that you think there is a magical entity called "the Internet" that exists somewhere above the clouds! You think of modern technology like a five year old thinks about God and Santa Claus.
Indeed, monopoly shitsville, courtesy of the FCC, the same organization you want to hand even more power to!
And tell me, as a legal, law-abiding immigrant myself: why should either of those two stories scare me?
Why would immigrants be afraid of ICE? As an immigrant, you're supposed to carry your green card at all times.
People aren't convicted based on "the camera says it's John Smith"; rather, the camera says "the person committing the crime might be John Smith" and then real people compare actual photos of John Smith against the pictures taken by the camera.
That is what is supposed to happen. It is the right thing. Guaranteeing that Netflix comes in at the same speed as Comcast's own services means Comcast needs to pay for a lot more hardware and peering to route Netflix traffic onto their network to any potential user. Those costs ought to be paid for exclusively by Netflix subscribers, but under net neutrality, they are born by all Comcast subscribers. Contrary to the naive view of networks that you seem to have, when data moves from point A to point B, it makes a great deal of difference where point A and point B are and how much data moves between them.
Why would telecoms even bother "blocking little players"? By definition, little players don't have a lot of money. Note that none of your examples involve "little players".
And why should I be forced to subsidize "little players" anyway? What do I care whether you can start a startup?
But in actuality, even if "net neutrality" were justified in terms of helping little players, that is not the primary thing it does. The primary thing net neutrality does is help a bunch of big players whose business model is built on a world in which traffic is difficult to account for.
Yes, so? Why should low cost consumer plans offer high outgoing data volumes?
Don't buy from AT&T then.
Oh, the horror! People get stuff for free! Next thing you are going to ask for "software neutrality" under which we are forced to pay the same amount for Ubuntu 18.04 as we are for Windows 10, because neutrality!
Google is translating their massive near-monopoly into an attempt to dominate online payment systems and that justifies that I am forced to subsidize their efforts. Thanks, but no thanks.
We've done the experiment side-by-side in Germany and Korea: same populations, starting at the same level of development.
We've done the experiment with free market countries turning into socialist countries and failing, in Cuba and Venezuela among many others.
And it's been shown that this isn't just an all-or-nothing effect, but that "levels of freedom relating to use of markets and property rights appear to be driving the causal relationship between economic freedom and growth."
Propagandists and marketers pick brand names for their products that mislead you into thinking that they deliver benefits that they don't actually deliver. So, "net neutrality" is no more about "neutrality" than "Diet Coke" is about dieting.
The major use of net neutrality rules so far has been to prevent ISPs from offering free access to paying partners. People who want to use only Facebook or Google or Netflix might get unlimited usage thrown in with their regular subscription. That is what "fucking with traffic" means: free stuff because ISPs are competing with each other. You don't want that?
I can tell you who doesn't want it: companies like Facebook and Google, who know that in a more competitive market and in a market where they can get charged for pushing their advertising, their margins actually will shrink.
I'm sorry, I thought it was clear that I was referring to experience outside government.
And I was responding that I think that is a foolish thing to want.
Well, since you haven't made any arguments, there is nothing to understand.
As for your foolish enthusiasm for socialism and for Europe, I have heard that many times before.
You mean an inexperienced loser whose message is that everybody should live at the expense of tax payers? No, I should think not. Even Democrats used to be too smart and decent to tolerate someone like Bernie.
Yes, instead they have been living it up based on money and power they gain from government and their political message is that they want to funnel even more tax payer money to people like themselves; that's even more corrupt.
Yes, "bought by the NRA", an organization that is primarily funded by small donations and membership fees. And that's also why it is so powerful: it is a true grassroots organization that represents many millions of voters.
Look at the huge corporate backers of net neutrality: Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. The same corporations are also massive donors to the Democrats. Do you think they are spending all that money out of altruism? Because they want to protect small startups? Don't make me laugh. Are you merely a gullible fool or do you actually work for one of those corporate backers of net neutrality?
No, not everybody wants net neutrality. But obviously, no rational debate is possible with you because you already engage in preemptive ad-hominems. Fortunately, no debate with people like you is even necessary at this point.
It's quite relevant: the state takes over from parents who expose their kids to unusual risks and illegal behavior. That's a principle we apply to citizens, and it is certainly also a principle that applies to people who expose their kids to the risk of illegal migration into the US.
Any adult with kids who doesn't want to be separated should apply for asylum at an entry point. That's the only responsible thing to do.
Trying to sneak into the US illegally with your kids is so irresponsible and dangerous that I think the adults should lose guardianship anyway, all immigration issues aside. American parents have their kids taken away for less.
Someone who works in the ICE IT department clearly does not "take kids away from parents" in any sense found in the dictionary.
"These days"? The problems with debates, demagoguery, majoritarianism, elected representatives, and bread-and-circuses have been known since Greek and Roman times.
Yes, indeed, Google shows that there are lots of dumb, uninformed people who believe that Europe is socialist.
That's because your expectations are wrong. For example, beyond $2500/capita/year health care spending, life expectancy does not increase; that's not a US issue, it's true in Europe as well. Years in education and voter turnout are neither a sign of wealth nor a sign of positive outcomes. Etc.
The successful nations that are overwhelmingly run by right wing (Christian conservative) governments, you mean?
What you see when you look at the US data is that areas governed by Democrats have higher murder rates, higher poverty rates, and higher inequality, and those outcomes are directly attributable to Democratic policies.
In addition, Democrats have changed; they used to lean more towards liberalism, but over the last decade, they increasingly lean socialist (viz Sanders), so you can't judge their current policies by their past performance.
You have not made a single argument to support the statement that "the US is very rightwing and right extremist". All you have done is repeatedly argued for the supposed benefits of socialism, argued that Western Europe is supposedly socialist, and argued that Western Europe is supposedly doing economically better than the US.
Sure you can: having those kinds of debate is perfectly possible in a nation with limited government and enumerated powers.
We've done that and the result is always the same: the laissez-faire island does really well, entrepreneurs flee from socialist island to laissez-faire island, and eventually, the disillusioned socialists flee from socialist island to laissez-faire island and try to turn it socialist too. Debate with socialist is pointless. Socialism is the rational choice for stupid people. As socialists take over your country, you fight them, and when that doesn't work anymore, you leave and let them rot in their own filth.
See, and that question starts from the wrong premise that government should do "what is good for the American economy".
Which is precisely because we should have a debate on models and ideology, not "facts" and utility.
No, what is really going on is that you start with the premise that "if policy X can be shown to be 'beneficial', then government is justified in forcing people to comply with policy X". That's an authoritarian and collectivist mindset that I reject.
Tariffs are wrong because they infringe on freedom of association and private property. Of course, since you probably don't respect freedom of association and private property, you don't care. That's why you try to go with a utilitarian argument. (And your utilitarian argument isn't even much of an argument,.)
People who make fact based utilitarian arguments like you do are certainly prone to that. For example, progressives concluded that in order to increase average IQ, they should engage in forced sterilization of low IQ populations. These days, progressives oppose forced sterilizations, but in order to reach that conclusion, they simply deny heritable IQ differences altogether.
The classical liberal arguments are not utilitarian. Tariffs are wrong because they interfere with freedom of association and private property. Forced sterilizations are wrong because they represent aggression against someone's body. Eugenics is wrong because it interferes with freedom of association. Etc. Whether a policy can be argued to be "beneficial" (to who?) is utterly irrelevant.