Orou

> clear target

Which means you have clear evidence you can share with everyone, right?

My take, and I'd love to hear any contrasting opinions, is that this is due to shareholder supremacy. Once a company has shareholders, it is beholden to them. The purpose of the company isn't to innovate, or do good in the world, or make their customers happy. It's to make money for their shareholders.

Now, in order to make that money for shareholders, they're going to need customers that are satisfied with their product. They might need to innovate to stay competitive. They might need to actually make the world a bit better in order to stay solvent. But at the end of the day, they aren't going to sacrifice shareholder rewards for their customers, innovation, the betterment of the world at large, or for anything else. It's simply not their modus operandi.

You do realize Trump belongs to that very same group of rich-by-inheritance that you're contrasting him with, right?

If we didn't have the system of inter-generational wealth transfer that you're defending, Trump very likely wouldn't be president right now.

It's enough that you don't have to worry about your ability to save money. It doesn't mean you never have to think about money at all.

When I moved to London I was surprised how low salaries were, even after factoring in social services like the NHS. 100K USD (80,000GBP) is a very good salary there.

Had to check because I thought if anything Firefox's market share had been increasing the past couple of years, but you're absolutely right. I wonder why Firefox isn't performing better in the browser market - it's arguably better than it's ever been.

> Racism is any prejudice against someone because of their race, when those views are reinforced by systems of power.

The addition of "systems of power" to the definition of racism is a recent one, and it blurs the lines between "racism" and "systemic racism" as separate concepts by introducing power dynamics.

Having clear definitions for abstract concepts is essential for people to understand each other and (hopefully) reach consensus. Redefining words so that they better suit certain ideological perspectives does not help that cause.

It also casually implies that being prejudiced and discriminatory based on skin tone is fine, as long as you're discriminating "up", not "down".

> I don't think their move here is illegal.

This seems illegal to me, but I really don't know. What are the laws surrounding race-based company promotions/discounts?

The issue doesn't arise because of parseInt() being able to take more than one argument, the issue is that map() is passing not only the value in the array but also its index as well as a copy of the full array.

I use map() all the time but I didn't know about that until I read this article. I wonder why map() functions this way in Javascript and if any other languages pass additional values like this in their own map() implementations.

I do think GP has a fair point of criticism - at least when I use map() I expect it to take each value in the array and pass it to the callback function. I don't expect it to take each value in the array, the index of that value and the entire array and pass all of that to the callback function instead.

Since you mentioned a popular YouTube channel, Historia Civilis has an excellent series on the late Roman Republic, where populism plays a major role in the republic's downfall.

I'm not sure I agree that populism is, by nature, opposed to democracy. I think it is better defined as an opposition to the status quo - which very well may be a democratic government - when that system fails to address the concerns of its people. The voting process in Rome was hilariously tilted against poorer Roman citizens. The only real recourse for anyone fed-up with the senate would be to support a strongman populist who promised radical reform, because the existing voting system (public assemblies) was not effective at representing the will of the people (by design).

I think CGP Grey's video on the keys to power is another great example of this dynamic at play - you only matter when you hold a key to power. Without that, no leader will waste their time listening to you.

> forcibly muzzled just like the rest of us

Yikes. I'm not sure that sort of rhetoric is really helping your argument.

> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them.

Who do you believe should have final say over which person or group of people can have a platform, and who can't?

Should it be whoever owns that particular platform? Should it be the government? Should it be the court of public opinion? I've yet to see a compelling argument for deplatforming that answers this question, because what is acceptable to society has large grey areas that are constantly shifting. I think the intentions are nothing but wonderful - I'm very glad that communities like those in the report you cited, and many similar ones, no longer exist on Reddit. The problem as I see it is that censorship lowers visibility of hate speech very effectively, but if anything seems to strengthen people's convictions that they are right about what they believe. Hateful subreddits may disappear, but is that clear evidence that the people that participated in them changed their minds about what they had expressed online? I find that conclusion dubious at best.

I see this issue most strongly with conspiracy theorists, which seem to be a dime a dozen in 2020. Censorship is nothing if not evidence that what someone is saying is true - see the recent "Plandemic" viral video as a great example.

Deplatforming is, like I said, well-intentioned, but like so many "solutions" it is obsessed with the symptom of the disease, not the cause. It is based on the very old but very wrong notion that 'if only everyone believed what I believe, all the world would be at peace'. That notion is the cornerstone of religious dogma and has been the justification for religious conversion, forcible or otherwise, for millennia. There are proven ways to moderate people's beliefs through civil discourse. The issue is that it is so time consuming, unsatisfying, and thankless (not to mention that you don't get to play moral superiority games) that I'm not surprised people would rather just throw down the banhammer instead.

Do you have any data you could share on the 10%/90% divide when it comes to working conditions? I assume you're talking primarily about compensation and benefits here.

One of the interesting things about the American work system to me is that even high-status, highly-paid careers are still built around 60+ hour work weeks for many. The system doesn't seem geared towards life balance at all, it seems geared toward giving outsized rewards to workaholics for whom there is little going on in life besides their jobs.

I'd love to see this as well. Web apps seem really tricky when it comes to not using frameworks though. You can use JQuery - it's tried and true - but it also seems to be on the way out. Great if you know it, but is it worth learning if you don't?

I had the unfortunate experience of building a static site using Nuxt recently which included Jupyter Notebook exports as html files. I ran into so many problems that the complexities of the framework quickly overshadowed the conveniences. Makes me wish I tried doing everything in vanilla JS instead - I might at least have learned something transferable to other projects that way.

Great read, thanks for linking.

Is there any aggregate data on how the money printed by the U.S. government has been distributed historically? Inflation only helps the average person if they get a slice of the money printed, and I have a feeling the vast majority of it hasn't been going directly to John and Jane Doe.

You're confusing cost with savings.

Method C provides 5x greater savings on the cost when compared to Method B. It does not mean that the actual cost is 5x less.

Chemotherapy is a "clear and effective medical intervention". It doesn't mean that there are no meaningful repercussions or that it is right for everyone equally, unequivocally, and unconditionally.

The long-term implications of sexual reassignment surgery are far from settled.