Kranar

The idea that it's minimizing to point out that antisemitism emerged as a form of hatred on the basis of ones race, who one is inherently and born as, as opposed to one's beliefs or customs is really quite an absurd position to take and I hope you'd take some time to reflect on your overall position on this matter.

When you say a lot, do you just mean the three Wikipedia articles? Because I looked at them and they reaffirm what the other person is saying, that there is a distinction between anti-Judaism and antisemitism. In fact right in the very link you post it states:

>The development of racial and religious antisemitism has historically been encouraged by the concept of anti-Judaism, which is distinct from antisemitism itself.

It's that distinction that is being discussed, and the other Wikipedia articles which do recognize that distinction point out that this was a 19th century development:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

>of course whoever has servers closer to the exchange can do HFT better

Can do better at what? Can get their trade in the order book faster? Yes they can. But does that automatically mean they will make more money? No it does not.

>If you're a private person with 100 years experience in trading, you still can't do HFT.

Of course not, 100 years ago there were no computers. Having 100 years of experience in trading on the pit would not give you any expertise in software development.

Someone with 10 thousand years of experience plowing can't compete against someone with a tractor. That's kind of the point of the tractor...

I'm sorry that it disturbs you that the Average Joe sitting at home with his discount online brokerage account is unable to gain the same kind of benefits putting out individual orders here and there on speculative stocks that he likely knows nothing about, that hedge funds, institutions, and other highly specialized and skilled professionals are able to gain by doing this for a living.

The Average Joe does have access to highly diversified and low fee ETFs, and as I said the Average Joe can reap almost all of the rewards that the best hedge funds and banks do by sticking to those instead of trying to play the market.

Of course the Average Joe has disadvantages compared to a hedge fund or people who are experts in a field and spend the bulk of their life dedicated to some aspect that the Average Joe is not dedicated towards.

If Average Joe wants returns comparable to these hedge funds, then they should stop trying to time to market and instead stick to diversified ETFs and stop worrying about millisecond differences in the stock market.

Believe it or not, if Average Joe does that they can actually beat most hedge funds over a long time horizon [1].

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/warren-buffett-won-2-point-2...

> "CSAM" itself could be read as a dysphemism of CP whose purpose is less to emphasize the heinous nature of the abuse involved

Maybe it could be read that way by some, but that's not why the term was adopted and it's not why the term is advocated for by anti-sexual violence organizations.

https://inhope.org/EN/articles/child-sexual-abuse-material

https://www.rainn.org/news/what-child-sexual-abuse-material-...

https://www.thorn.org/blog/decoding-the-language-of-child-se...

As for the fact that making it simulated renders the term meaningless, the entire point of a simulation is that it is not the actual thing that is happening but rather an imitative representation of something that could be real. Presumably the abuse towards a child could be real, and hence it's possible to imitate that abuse in various forms of media. It is that imitation that constitutes the simulation.

If you argue that it makes the term meaningless, then you must accept that the simulation of anything is meaningless.

What do you think an Average Joe is going to do with that extra millisecond available to them?

No, I was careful to not make any absolutist claim and even provided a reference for people to read further. Pornography in general is subject to the Miller test, so it should not be surprising that simulated CSAM is also subject to the Miller test as well.

That's not true, the justification outlawing CSAM being the result of a crime is not the actual legal justification for banning it and it would not at all hold up in court.

There are plenty of incredibly disturbing videos and images of some of the most gruesome crimes committed and they are lawfully accessible and obtainable on the open Internet, including some such images on Wikipedia. The documenting of a crime is not and has never been illegal.

You are certainly right and there is good reason for that, however, it's worth noting that in the U.S., at least as per Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition [1], simulated CSAM is legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...

No one would dispute that hatred towards Jews existed for 1000s of years, but I think you're mincing words here and being somewhat uncharitable. The kind of anti-Semitism that was based on an innate racial inferiority rather than based on religion and culture was very much a 19th century development and it was that specific form of hatred towards Jews that was widespread across Europe and America rather than an opposition towards Jewish customs and beliefs.

Indeed the term "anti-Semitism" was coined to reflect the shift in hatred towards Jews from one rooted in culture and religion to one root in race. The very fact that you acknowledge that pogroms prior to the 19th century were not based on race suggests that if you had just taken the time to actually understand what was being said you could have avoided your confusion.

I don't see how these can be compared. They are totally different color schemes. It's possible that if you took the right image and displayed it using the same color scheme as the left image that it would look better than the left image.

Type classes are not parametric polymorphism.

C++ templates are a form of duck typing as well, and combined with type erasure give you a lot of the benefits of OO without the downsides.

That's not what happened though. The catalyst for getting rid of it was logistic issues related to COVID.

Theoretical CS is not at all applied math. Ordinary computer science overlaps with applied math, but theoretical CS is very abstract.

There's no formal hierarchy so there's nothing technical about it. Field's medal is certainly prestigious but it's not widely applicable, it has a bunch of restrictions that don't have anything to do with math itself, including an age limit. For example no one who has ever been awarded an Abel Prize would qualify for a Field's medal strictly due to age.

I don't see any proposal put forth. I see a study that is observing human behavior.

The behavior being observed is merchants increasing their prices for all consumers to accommodate a subset of consumers who use reward cards, where reward cards end up being a form of income for their holders.

The distribution of consumers who gain the most income from reward cards are those who are more wealthy. The distribution of consumers who lose the most money as a consequence of having to pay higher prices due to said reward cards are the less wealthy. The end result is a transfer of wealth from those less wealthy to those more wealthy.

That is an observation, not a proposal or a judgement. You are welcome to make a judgement or put forth a proposal from that observation but the study itself did not do so.

The Fed is very careful to differentiate between income and wealth. You can be wealthy with little income and you can have a lot of income but not be wealthy.

While the study points out that high income, high FICO consumers benefit at the expense of high income low FICO consumers, which strictly controls for income as opposed to wealth, ultimately the study concludes what OP said it does, that reward programs transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, and I quote:

>Credit card rewards transfer income from less to more educated, from poorer to richer, and from high- to low minority areas, thereby widening existing spatial disparities.

I also worked at small businesses and they absolutely preferred cash but not because it was easy to handle but because, you know... taxes, wink wink.

Not sure what is meant by this statement. Both cpp2 and Carbon are different languages, neither of them claim to be just C++.

Both languages will have bidirectional compatibility with C++ so that code written in C++ can be directly accessed from Carbon and code written in Carbon can be directly accessed from C++. Neither of them use an FFI for compatibility.

No it's just incorrect and no amount of pandering to his authority will change that.

People make mistakes and this is one of them, it's not the end of the world. Avoid the temptation to believe false information just because you happen to worship someone, it reflects poorly on your ability to critically judge information.

>The unbound version even does a proper virtual dispatch for you--in C++ you can break class invariants by skipping a virtual dispatch by using a member pointer.

This is not true, the C++ version does the proper virtual dispatch.

>I understand C++'s intention, but it's doing no one any favors here and makes it really hard to build proper abstractions.

std::function is a perfectly fine abstraction built on-top of the lower level primitives if you don't care about always paying a performance penalty. As someone who writes performance sensitive code, I do care so I try to avoid that penalty.

>std::function is considerably more heavyweight (and according to this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13503511/sizeof-of-stdfu... might be arbitrarily large);

Of course std::function can allocate arbitrarily large amounts of memory, so can Virgil's implementation. The sizeof(std::function) is always fixed, but because it can capture arbitrarily functions which themselves can carry arbitrarily large state, then so too must std::function also have the potential to allocate arbitrarily large amounts of memory.

In C++ people avoid std::function because as you said it's slow, and people tend to not use C++ for programs that can be slow, this goes back to the principle of not having to pay for what you don't use. In other languages you don't get that choice, you basically are required to pay the worst case cost even if you never use it.

I can't speak to Virgil, never used it, but C++ features try their best to adhere to the principle that you don't pay for what you don't use. It's not perfect but pointer to member functions in C++ use the simplest implementation that is possible for that given functionality. In C# delegates can not be unbound from instance variables, they must be bound at the point of creation. In C++ that is not the case which makes C++ pointer to members much more flexible.

It looks like in Virgil you can have both bound and unbound pointers. You are welcome to correct me but I suspect it's implemented in such a way that you are always paying the cost of having a bound function pointer even if you only ever use it as an unbound function pointer. This would violate the principle I mentioned.

In C++ if you don't mind always paying that cost, you are welcome to use std::function and it will work just as it does in the example you gave:

    std::function<ReturnType (Arg1, Arg2, ...)>

This isn't correct. C++ pointer to member's do not carry any instance information. They are more complex than plain pointers because they will still do proper virtual dispatching in the presence of multiple inheritance which requires more machinery than a plain function pointer, but this has absolutely nothing to do with keeping a pointer to an instance/this.

There's no shortage of studies that all conclude the same thing, there is no evidence that dental cleanings have any benefit. You can do a Google search for yourself.

I'm not here to tell you personally what you should or shouldn't do. By all means keep doing dental cleanings, continue seeing your chiropractor, routinely checkup with your naturopath or guru, or whoever else you want to pay money to for whatever reason you want.

I'm just pointing out the objective fact that there is no evidence that doing so will provides any observable health benefit. It might benefit you psychologically, it might encourage you to take better care of your teeth if you see your dentist regularly, who knows... but as far as the science goes, well there just is nothing to substantiate dental cleaning.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230768070_Is_the_Ev...

https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/htis/oct-2013/R...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554695/

https://www.cochrane.org/news/routine-dental-care-does-evide...

As I said you are confusing a clinical trial with validated research.

Dentists are criticized because there are clinical trials about the effectiveness of dental cleanings and they do not support the hypothesis that dental cleanings have a beneficial effect on dental health.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

That's not true in the context of big bang cosmology. It's true that today we would not be able to observe things beyond the observable universe by definition, and so there's not much purpose in reasoning beyond today's observable universe, but the observable universe changes over time and when reasoning about the early universe there would be differences between a finite universe and an infinite universe.

There is no dispute that the observable universe is as you describe, but there is absolutely no consensus as to whether the universe is finite or infinite.

Generally that's what studies do; you can't really disprove things like naturopathy or chiropractic care, all you can do is show that they do not have any evidence to support them.

I can't speak to your particular medical condition, but I can say I know people who say the exact same thing about acupuncture; they absolutely swear that it helps treat their pain and they are sincere in their belief just as I am sure you are sincere about your belief.

Thankfully science is not about sincerity in one's own beliefs.

You're kind of just making stuff up here. In particular the assertion that the big bang involved a finite amount of energy is entirely unfounded.

It's not that your statement is false, but that there is absolutely no consensus on the matter.

Some physicists make strong arguments that at the big bang the total energy of the universe was 0:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe