bin0

When you say the rest of the world, I assume you mean that Europe is much further left than America? If so, that has no bearing on how we judge American media. Other nations are farther left or right; we judge bias based on the political center of the respective nation. American media does not have a "normal" or "center" bias just because politics in your nation are farther left; American voters determine where the American center is (not those in europe).

This is a political opinion. Whether the presidency is doing something good or bad is one. Half the nation disagrees with you. By expressing this in an implicit sense in media, the media is biased.

Also, you're wrong: obama was Mister "I've got a pen and a phone". One party spent eight years centralizing power in the executive, then complains when the other side gets elected and uses it.

This is misleading as all get-out. "JavaScript assembler" is WASM, I assume? Running it in a browser still includes the overhead of a browser. The slowness is not from the wasm runtime (which has been implemented standalone and is fast), but in the browser-y gui stuff (which is what electron is good for). Also, WASM has less tooling etc. around it than JS, so JS is used for now. And jS is slow, but it's what is used by electron.

Your saying "electron could be made faster if we did all these huge things" is like me saying "but the c could be faster if we did great threading, really efficient code, inline ASM, and used intel's crazy compiler for maximum optimization". I get there's hope for the future, but not currently. In any case, implementing a custom graphics stack (like the web) will always be a heavy-weight task compared to one application.

But most have regional replacements. WeChat in China, VK (and some Telegram, though it's now blocked?) in Russia. This makes them less reliant on the American originals, which is why governments often encourage home-grown knock-offs.

Microsoft could do the same with Windows Defender with jutification, had the windows version exhibited the same malicious behavior.

Zoom deliberately circumvented Apple's standard package format, contrary to security interests. Zoom is basically behaving like a virus here.

I don't need an "excuse" to continue eating meat. I like it, I eat measured amounts in a health way, and don't believe in this "veganism is healthier" nonsense. I'm going to continue eating it unless some one gives me a darn good reason not to.

It's costly and slow because of massive over-regulation and American regulators' retarded approval of new generations of technology. And no, there are no nuclear shills; wind and solar are not feasible nation-wide. They require a massive overhaul of the electric grid and a change in our consumption model of electricity, which no one wants (nor should he have) to do.

Not necessarily. Mortality of mothers is higher in multiple births; maybe that's a counter-pressure (fewer children). Children do worse as well ([0], [1], [2]). Ladies are not built to carry more than one child, especially considering the size of our children, and agriculture has been such a blip on the evolutionary/anthropological timescale that we have not had time to evolve so significantly as to change our basic reproduction.

[0]: https://watermark.silverchair.com/151663.pdf?token=AQECAHi20...

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541191/

[2] https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/4/e004514

I'd dispute a lot of what is in that source. Their heat-maps of various characteristics are a correlation only, and a correlation among things which tend to go together (fertility rate, tv ownership (wealth), gdp per capita, and female literacy usually increase in tandem as part of a cultural shift). This does not necessarily mean they cause each other.

Also, ought we really to be brainwashing people to live how we wish them to?

I think there was such a selection pressure when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Agriculture is a very recent development anthropologically, so we were still in the mode of one-kid-per-pregnancy, though multiple might have been advantageous. It's possible we developed higher fertility due to that, but we didn't have enough time for that new pressure to kick in.

> Large families do not just happen due to poverty

You're right, they happen due to culture. However, the cultures you listed are notably insular and traditional, meaning they do not have large families for the same reason much of the world does (high infant mortality). I doubt these will ever change, but it is very possible the rest of the world will.

Everything I'm hearing sounds like a choice. Married? That's a choice. Kids? Choice. MtG cards? Choice. Fruit stand? Choice.

America is a place where you have more chpices, but also bear the consequenses thereof.

Let me take the opposite: should you be able to live behind a fruit stand in the woods and have your wife taken care of and kid put through college? Who should pay for that?

I don't think it's "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" as "make your chouces and deal with/don't whine about the consequences".

Fair enough. I guess not all vegans will be homogeneous here either; I'm assuming some are in it for harm reduction, some for ecology, some for the "animals cute" factor. Oh well. I appreciate the insight.

Google is going to regret this in a few years, when it needs security experts and they are in short supply (or rather shorter; they are already in short supply). Maybe we should be commoditizing security knowledge, which is what a platform such as you tube is capable of. Besides, there's a whole internet full of resources, and this isn't going to stop the script kiddies. The real issue is the nation state hackers from Iran, N. Korea, China, Russia. They are the problem.

Companies I know of and that people I know work with have been the victim of ransomware many times. It is almost always Iran or N. Korea, and companies I know of have even been victimized twice (they took a look while inside and found another vector; the second time, they knew they had insurance and would pay again). Then there's the espionage - if you're bigger or have something China or Russia wants, they'll go after you.

The FBI classifies this as terrorism, and yet does nothing. These are acts of war, and we keep getting stepped on because our government does nothing. Most of us know fully well that our three-letter agencies have exploits capable of disabling just about any thing; it's time they start knocking Iranian, North Korean, Chinese, and Russian infrastructure offline as a retaliatory measure. Each time we trace another attack to one of them, a power plant goes down (or something alike). This is the only solution I can see.

> We took a step too low and need to climb back up

This is not going to happen; we will keep sliding. We are not the ones doing the stepping, because we do not control the platform. What we can do is persuade people to use distributed and/or federated alternatives.

So here's an interesting question: if plants are conscious, can vegans eat them? And if not, what will they eat? Not trying to troll vegans; if this is different and some one can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

It's a jobs program which humiliates innocent Americans and treats those who have committed no crime as common criminals without any warrant or probable cause. It's a violation of individual sovereignty without reason. Jobs are good, but the ends do not justify the means.

I sympathize with your problem, and it feels that things would be easier were the courts not so screwed up. It was formerly the case (hundreds of years ago) that if your neighbor burnt your lawn, you could sue him. No lawyers needed. It's sad that's no longer an option. That's how negative externalities were addressed in the past. The advantage to this system was that it didn't require the incompetent, corrupt, moronic politicians to stick their grubby hands into every thing; problems could be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than some pencil-pusher with no wit deciding he knows best for a large group.

I don't understand what you mean. Do you really think they should hire a less-qualified person because of her sex? "we are going to hire _another_ man" - if he's the most qualified, why wouldn't you?

What is this equitable hiring practice? Fire your team over and over until you get more women? What if your ten most qualified applicants are again men? It seems very possible.

And what is this unfair hiring practice? How do you know the most qualified weren't all male? You are using the term "equitable" over "equal", and I'm assuming you understand the difference. I don't believe a company ought to disadvantage men to the advantage of women, because I don't believe discrimination is just.

As for your "nobody said you'd lose your job", yes, you did. Your assumption is that at least one man will lose his job for a woman.

You did not answer my question - would you, personally, be willing to quit your job to allow a woman to take it? Even were she less qualified?

The way you're phrasing it, they need to "admit guilt". They are guilty of nothing. First of all, what kind of heartless jerk fires every one to win PC points? That's a really bad practice, not fair to your employees, and I certainly wouldn't want to work for a company who did that.

Clearly, there are problems finding women. There are fewer women; that means it is not possible to have 50/50 across the board. He just said that they are lowering the bar. What are they doing about hiring that is unfair? Probably nothing, if they have to hire less-qualified women or a more-qualified man.

There are fewer women in tech. Why is immaterial to the current discussion. For better or for worse, that's where we are. If you want my two cents, I think part of it is risk. I worked in a start-up for a few years (not in the valley), and there was one female developer in a company of thirty. Why? I think men (especially young ones) are more willing to pick up and move for a high risk/high reward opportunity.

But all that aside, seriously, who actually advocates firing every one so you can have a nice press release? Would you want to lose your job to give some random woman one?

I am stuck doing this for medical reasons, and it is certainly one of the most degrading experiences I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. It's very possible he's stuck doing it for similar reasons. Most machines in America aren't backscatter, but I still can't use them.

It's also a crapshoot - you may have an aggressive officer, or a friendly one. I've been patted down twice for absolutely no reason; not a second screening, the guy just went over me two times.

I keep wondering why we have chosen to sacrifice freedom for some small measure of security. More importantly, I don't really believe airport security stops much - it's security theater.

> So how come we got this smartphone , instead of actual portable computers that could, among other things, work as cellphones?

I have been looking for such a thing for a long time. Sadly, there is no good solution. If you want a not-horrible one, get a samsung tablet with cellular capabilities and run linux on dex on it.

I heard they are using quantum computing for the routing. Will be interesting to see if they open-source the code, and how much time and money they save with the new techniques.

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2018/11/intelli...

I'm really sorry to hear that google ads got even more, and now they're going to complain about a monopoly. Things like GDPR also make it harder to start a competitor, as paperwork and red tape always do; I have not personally worked on GDPR for any thing, but know some one who does and it's a nightmare.

If stringent government regulation got you here, maybe it will be less of that, not more, that gets you out.

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20340998

Others have mentioned the climate impacts, but I'd like to salute you for a different reason: your property is yours; good for you not listening to some BS regulation. The authority of others stops where your property begins.

You're right that it's more options, but it's also one more box a "competent JS dev" is expected to tick. One of the best and worst things about the JS ecosystem is the plethora of choices available.

On compilation, nope. Riot.js did it first, and this is literally the entire premise of typescript (I know typescript is a different language, but I see little difference here as it can mix with JS between writing only some stuff in TS).

You're right, they probably should have done it, and I'm excited to see it. But I also don't see why they couldn't have submitted a PR to react/angular/ember/meteor/vue.

Svelte is so great... so were react, angular, ember, meteor, and vue. I'm sorry, but I've got trouble seeing how having one more framework to learn is going to help any thing.

There's a webcomic of some sort to which I can't find the link, which talks about this. Some one is sick of the bloat of x framework/tool/whatever, and decides to build it better. He works hard, and finally version 1.0 is released to dramatic music. But there's a problem - it hits the real world and starts running into edge cases, bugs, and other things that can't be predicted in design and testing, necessarily. Features creep, and over time, it becomes just as bad as that which it sought to replace. Then, some bright young soul gets the idea that he can do it better...

This is not to discourage innovation. It doesn't appear it's been battle-tested like other frameworks, and I don't see many major operations on the list of users. If it ends up better, great, but I can't say I'm optimistic.

America's population is mainly growing from immigration, according to the Brookings Institute's synthesis of census data [0]. Is government-funded sterilization the most productive solution for us, or even necessary, if most of the new people are being born in other nations?

I understand you don't buy the idea of growth continuing through 2100, but I don't buy the idea of it ending beforehand until I see a citation. I found at least one estimate that supports my position; I haven't seen significant evidence to support the idea of growth ending that soon. All the things you list keep people employed.

I wouldn't just point to the "right wing" as authoritarian; that seems like needlessly politicizing a social problem. Dictators have no values or political alignment but their own moral gain.

With respect to your earlier comments around advertising, I don't know about Europe, but America has never advertised having a large family or a small one. Not sure it's the role of government to try and shape social norms; that's generally referred to as brainwashing.

[0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/12/21/us-popu...