Defletter

Huh, TIL

I have this two liner as part of my post-os-install setup script:

    curl -fsSL https://www.toptal.com/developers/gitignore/api/linux > ~/.gitignore
    git config --global core.excludesFile ~/.gitignore

This is something I struggle with on a semi-regular basis since I'm fairly interested in our constitutional history, so documents like the Bill of Rights 1688/9[1], the Petition of Right 1627[2], etc, are not old or illegible enough to have been given modern translations (like the Magna Carta 1297[3]). As such, they can be difficult reads, particularly with their endless run-on sentences. Punctuation seems to have not been invented yet either.

- [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/enact...

- [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha1/3/1/enacted

- [3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9

There is no "must use GC" mode, as far as I'm aware, but the footguns you describe only exist if the programmers opt-out of the GC. It's somewhat similar to using JNI/FFM in Java: it's possible to escape the safety of the VM. Though it's much easier to do so in D.

I do wonder then how difficult it would be to mod games written in D

Would you mind elaborating on this new replacement system?

> Does it need an article for saying it?

Not for nothing but The Art of War includes really insightful quotes like "If you do not feed your soldiers, they will die."

It's pretty frustrating when something advertises itself as open source and yet there's no link to its source to be found. There's even a footer that says "Polis is powered by support from people like you. Contribute here." But it's just a financial donation link.

Why is WASM a miserable platform?

Heh, this reminds me of that study that showed people would rather give themselves painful electric shocks than be alone.

https://www.science.org/content/article/people-would-rather-...

Are you an anarchist by any chance? Because the logical conclusion to this argument is why anyone can "force" anyone else to do anything.

You seem to have vastly misread his comment in your defensiveness: 1) his comment is not a concealment or a justification, it's an elaboration. This is more than mere semantic nitpick: he doesn't need to justify anything to you or conceal anything from you; he is not seeking your approval. Similarly 2) nor did he say it's "not a political statement", he said it "isn't some hypothetical political agenda", which to me has the extremely obvious meaning that it's not a virtue signal or other ulterior motive, that he may actually be dead by next week. If anything, he's confirming without a doubt that he included politics in his devlog, not denying it. Did his inclusion of "Abolish ICE" at the very bottom of his devlog really put you so off-kilter? Good grief, go outside.

Since you're so eager to construe his support for peaceful protest as support for civil unrest, I therefore think it's fair if I construe your defence of ICE to mean support for their extrajudicial executions and the people who dress up as ICE (ie: masked men dragging people at gunpoint into unmarked vans) to kidnap and rape people.

> D has a GC and it’s optional.

This is only true in the most technical sense: you can easily opt-out of the GC, but you will struggle with the standard library, and probably most third-party libraries too. It's the baseline assumption after all, hence why it's opt-out, not opt-in. There was a DConf talk about the future of Phobos which indicated increased support for @nogc, but this is a ways away, and even then. If you're opting-out of the GC, you are giving up a lot. And honestly, if you really don't want the GC, you may be better off with Zig.

Socialists governments do have taxes, yes, but to suggest that tax rate alone can define socialism implies to me a deeply misinformed understanding of what socialism even is.

> Elections really do happen in the UK and really do determine who is Prime Minister.

Different person, but while this is true, it's also true that the Prime Minister is not elected: they [ordinarily] emerge as being the leader of whichever party commands a majority in Parliament. It's how we've had so much Prime-Minister turnover since the Brexit referendum: those didn't happen because the electorate "determined" it.

BREAKING NEWS: conservative blames "socialism" for the ills caused by conservatism

People thinking that New Labour is left wing is both frustrating and amusing. There's constant in-fighting in the Labour party for a reason. Thatcher supposedly thought one of her greatest achievements was making the Labour Party agree on the economy. Labour is increasingly socially regressive. Mrs. Snooper's Charter herself became Prime Minister as leader of the Conservative Party and brought in a ton of state surveillance and new terrorism laws. I'm genuinely baffled as to what you think "socialism" even is or what you think it's to blame for here.

This kind of stuff is fascinating because it's the state interacting with itself. The Queen was powerless to reject his request, he being the leader of the government who governed in her name, whose prorogation was overturned by judges she appointed. She ultimately did not need to act because she had an army of people who acted on her behalf. This is not to say that every misuse of power is always caught, but rather that the Monarch gets to maintain a facade of impartiality because all the partiality is being done by their institutions instead.

Surely there has to be some level of "getting stuff done"/"achieving a goal" when /making/ things, otherwise you'd be foregoing for-loops because writing each iteration manually is more fun.

I yearn for the mindset where I actively choose to accomplish comparatively little in the brief spells I have to myself, and remain motivated. Part of what makes programming fun for me is actually achieving something. Which is not to say you have to use AI to be productive, or that you aren't achieving anything, but this is not the antithesis of what makes programming fun, only what makes it fun for you.

With all due respect, all you're doing here is presenting me with even more implication and innuendo. You are making a claim, you should be able to substantiate it, otherwise just be transparent about it being an opinion. You originally replied to me asking about whether stating something factual can run afoul of hate speech laws and now the goalposts have moved to whether in some alternative universe without hate speech laws it'd be more or less likely there would've been a whistleblower in this specific instance. How is anyone supposed to answer that? It's pure innuendo and doesn't merit a response. Unless you have anything substantive to provide, I think I'm going to leave it here.

Yeah, I'm failing to see how this is an example of "people [wanting] to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of [hate speech laws]". The article makes no mention of hate speech laws or anyone being prosecuted under them for discussing the representation of various ethnicities in sexual-assault statistics.

What the article does mention is that local officials and other agencies were "wary of identifying ethnic origins for fear of upsetting community cohesion, or being seen as racist", which is mere cowardice. In fact, I am somewhat surprised you are not using this to argue that government officials are too scared of free speech to do their job: that the implied threat of some people using their free speech to call the local government racist is enough to paralyse its function.

No, to me, what this article shows is how unfettered speech actually functions: a foreign billionaire with the loudest megaphone in history is dredging up a decade-old stain in our country's criminal history to aid and abet our domestic right and far-right political parties. And I think the fact that those parties immediately jumped on this in the media shows that it's very much not something that'll get you thrown in the gulag for discussing.

> How long have some people wanted to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of these laws?

I don't know, perhaps you should give some examples of this actually happening rather than relying solely on implication.

Alas, the distraction continues.

Do you also insist that we treat with proper decorum those who throw out assertions that jetfuel cannot melt steel beams? I notice you have yet to criticise them for posting what is at best misguided and unsubstantiated misinformation, and at worst disinformation. Hardly decorum on their part, is it? Instead, you are hyperfocusing on my "freeze peach", disregarding everything else I said in my comment. I find this to be a boring distraction from the topic at hand.

Okay, so just to be clear, you don't have even a single example of someone being prosecuted under hate speech laws for stating facts in the 40-odd years since its passage? Why is this not just concern trolling?

As to the general question, no, a statement being true does not immunise it from an accusation of it being used to stir up or incite hatred, or at the very least such a defence is not defined within the Public Order Act 1986. We do have the Human Rights Act which protects Freedom of Expression, but whether you could use it or other defences is pure speculation on my part: I would need to see some actual caselaw.

I've attempted my own searches but have only encountered the usual suspects: holocaust deniers and their ilk. Please let me know if you find such a case because I genuinely think that would be interesting to debate, but debating over pure speculation and innuendo is very boring.

> surely the discussion here would not benefit if everyone stooped down to that level.

Oh we were already at that level by that time: the comment mine responds to makes the claim that "it is really difficult to define what hate speech is" (untrue); that "more often than not it's used as a cudgel to silence the opposition" (unsubstantiated); and claims that the UK government's intentions match that of Iran and Russia (untrue).

For some reason, so many people seem to tolerate outright disinformation but draw the line at mild childishness. It's bewildering.

Do you have any examples of people being prosecuted for hate speech by stating nothing but dry facts?

Cool beans

> Interesting that the cases that spring to mind for you are literal neo-Nazis.

If I had a penny for every time this happened....