> MAANG now?
I keep hearing MANGA
707 karma · joined May 10, 2020
I keep hearing MANGA
The comments about the ACLU probably aren't about the second amendment. That's never been the ACLU's thing. It's probably about the recent backing away from the 1st amendment which has historically been the ACLU's domain.
NYT link covering the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
Archive.org link in case you can't view the NYT link: https://web.archive.org/web/20211027082703/https://www.nytim...
It's also within people's rights to criticize them for it.
No reason to complicate line endings for a rare circumstance like this.
What's the difference?
C's job is to be the first thing ported to a new architecture, allow you to bootstrap a system, and build on top of it (last 2 steps optional if you're working on some sort of embedded system).
And, frankly, it's reasonably good at that. Writing a simple C compiler is trivial compared to something like rust.
That's assuming it's physically harmful (to the ears). If it were instead mentally harmful, what you would expect is for the incidence of mental illness to increase as life got noisier and noisier (with a lag, of course, assuming this effect takes an appreciable amount of time).
If we're including holidays, I've seen plenty of companies that do 4 weeks PTO + 8-9 holidays which is just shy of 6 weeks, and there some that do 5-6 weeks PTO after you've been there for a number of years.
But there are also ones where you basically get no PTO. Presumably (hopefully?) you get paid more money to work at these places, but I've never found them worth investigating.
> I've come around to this view, too.
I don't think they were disagreeing with you.
So, I have to ask. If shunning is off the table, what's the social punishment for people who do shun?
He tried to conquer a bunch of places. That's generally not seen kindly in the modern era.
Also he lost, which generally allows one's opponents to control the narrative.
Though, my understanding is that they are still not allowed to control nuclear weapons, so I'd still put them in sub-government levels of dangerous.
For new grads? In my experience, they're usually miles behind an 18 year old who has been messing around in their spare time for a few years. There are, of course, exceptions, but at this point seeing something they don't teach at the local universities is more eye-catching on a resume than most degrees.
It usually means they bothered to learn something on their own.
And, even if you don't, you can always call a(482)
It's the boring option, but there's a lot of customization options and they've never broken anything I use.
Because people will die. Software engineers who, say, work in the airline industry don't do this either (they also probably use ada or something like it).
I'd also be willing to bet a significant amount of money that an engineer that works on something like soft drink bottles moves a lot faster than one who designs bridges.
I think you're thinking of "assault weapon" which gets thrown about a lot and for which there isn't a clear definition.
I get your point here, but once someone has already lost trust in the government, having the government regulate itself isn't really a viable counter to that person's concerns.
I think this is an excellent example of what I meant about "how direct the harm is" mattering.
Imagine, if you will, a continuum ranging from absolutely direct harm to absolutely indirect harm.
On the absolute left, imagine person A stabbing person B. That's about as direct as you can get, right? And I also think there's not a ton of people who would disagree that stabbing someone should be banned (let's ignore self defense arguments).
On the absolute right, imagine person A moves a chair. Someone trips over this chair. That person ends up in a foul mood and cuts someone off in traffic. This causes a traffic jam. In this traffic jam, a refrigerated truck breaks down and a bunch of food is ruined. More food is ordered, which takes up space in a shipping container that would have gone to medicine, had the food not been ordered. Person B dies because of a lack of medicine that would have been there had person A not moved the chair.
This was about as indirect of series of events as I could come up with, but I think you get my point here. There's a direct causal chain between person A's actions and person B's death in both scenarios, but I can't imagine very many people really condemning person A in the second one. In fact I think someone trying to ban moving chairs because of this incident would be soundly ridiculed.
So where does going outside without a mask during a pandemic sit on this continuum? Well, going outside without a mask, if you have a high viral load, and someone comes close to you, there's definitely a chance they could die. That's definitely not nearly as direct of harm as stabbing someone. It's also clearly not nearly as indirect as that tortured example I came up with in the second one.
Personal opinion? It's definitely farther to the left than the right. Say, somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 of the way to the left. Maybe somewhere around 2/3 of the way there.
Someone's opinion on something such as a mask mandate, is going to depend on if they view that as direct enough harm for the government to have a legitimate interest in regulating.
I don't think there is anyone who actually thinks of these things in terms of "regardless of the harm it causes others". Ok, this being the internet, we can probably find one, but I don't think there's any significant portion of the population. That position is basically a strawman.
I do think, however, that there's people who draw the lines in very different places, or put different weight on different categories of harm.
As an example, physical or financial harm are very easy to verify. There's not a lot of debate about if they qualify. Mental or emotional harm, on the other hand, is very hard to verify. This presents a significant problem for anyone who is worried about the system being abused. These groups will draw lines at very different places around any claim of harm within those categories.
The end result is that you'll end up with one group being labeled as grifters who want to fleece the system, and the other as being completely insensitive to human suffering (sound familiar?)
That's not even to get into the debate of what constitutes harm. For example, is not helping someone harming them? Is ceasing help once you've started helping someone harming them? These are too big of questions for the post, but I imagine you get the idea.
Or I completely screwed up my understanding of this thread. That's also very possible.