jwalgenbach

Yeah, not so much.

The difference is in the legal definition of protected class. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their membership of a protected class -- ethnicity or disability for instance.

Removing an opinion or banning a user based on violation of an agreed upon term of service is not the same thing. Having an opinion does not make you a member of a protected class, and a private corporation is free to allow you or disallow you from use of their services to broadcast that opinion. Newspapers have been doing this since the dawn of print. Google could not, for example, ban someone for being Jewish.

You can argue about whether sexual orientation deserves status as a protected class, but it is disingenuous to claim that the two are the same thing under the law. It is a false equivalency.

Seriously? How about a Hippocratic Oath for CEOs and other corporate executives? They exist in a world that encourages sociopathic behavior, and they are coming down on engineers?

Start by repealing the Citizens United ruling. If corporations can't have free speech, then this isn't an issue.

Are you sure you are dealing with the same issue?

Twitter didn't restrict Trump's tweet. It added their own speech (and not masqueraded as Trump).

Follow me here:

Citizen United says that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals, thus allowing them to exercise their "speech" by dumping tons of dark money into politics.

Twitter exercised free speech by publishing something on their own platform.

The government is now trying to limit Twitter's right to free speech as has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

This is a Trump tantrum.

What a maroon.

Why don't you choose one that has approximately the same population and same population density -- that's why choosing an individual U.S. state might be a better choice because the U.S. is large and has a wide range of population densities.

The key point here is transmission of an infectious disease, so to get a proper comparison, you need to start with approximately the same probabilities of people infecting one another. That begins with proximity. Comparing the U.S. and Australia doesn't work because of that.

No. Wasm is still executing on a virtual machine, and native compiled go code will still be native.

This isn't a programming discussion. It's a discussion of the policies around an open source project. It's totally politics, albeit not on a national scale.

If you have a breaking change in a new version of the code with lots of changes, or don't discover the break until several revisions later, git can help find the responsible code with git bisect.

The idea is to manage and track change to your code base so that you can answer questions about the code base efficiently when there are problems.

One of the reasons I use go is the production of static, self contained binaries. Wouldn't binary artifacts make that much more difficult?

Python doesn't really scale -- it just calls out to C code for heavy computation and perl could do that too.

The more difficult part would be making perl easily maintainable. You can write unmaintainable code in any language, but perl made it easier, and python makes it (relatively) harder.

Originalism in what respect? The Second Amendment specifically stated that a well regulated militia was the purpose of the right to bear arms.

The "originalists" on the Supreme Court had no problem interpreting that to mean everyone gets a gun, regardless of their participation in the militia to defend the state. U.S. v Miller (1939) and the rise of a professional national army made the Second Amendment irrelevant until 2008.

That's when your boy Scalia wrote the majority opinion of D.C. v Heller, where the conservative majority reinterpreted the Second Amendment to ignore the first part (and the previous Supreme Court decision (U.S. v Miller) and state that rather than being in the context of a militia, the right to bear arms should be applied to individuals without context.

Far from trying to apply the principles of the founders to the Constitution, the conservative judges have again and again proven that they exist as a political adjunct to the Republican party, in the true model of activist judges overturning precedent whenever it doesn't fit their politics.

I'm actually with you on C. C has the excuse of being portable assembly and from the dawn of time. Javascript is just the result of shoehorning something into the browser quickly.

Meh. Wanting to replace javascript for frontend webdev is no different than wanting to run javascript on the server. It's not perverse or petulant. Everyone has opinions...

I've written a lot of python, javascript, C and go in my career, and my opinion is that javascript has done a barely adequate job despite being the only game in town.

Correct, and they aren't losing money when they sell to consumers that don't need to full capabilities. Yet the tractor itself is already capable (and purchased -- or at least financed which amounts to legal ownership going to the consumer). They recoup their initial dimes in the base cost of the unit.

So JD, which isn't losing money on the "entry level" product provides no actual goods or service for the upgrade, beyond removing the governor. At that point, it's more or less free money to JD -- profit with nothing provided the consumer.

Yeah -- it's the same thing, and I'd argue it's a scam. Companies are not losing money on the lower horsepower tractors or lower speed CPUs. So they are manufacturing a single product and artificially limiting it so it can be sold at a higher market value to remove the limits.

It'd be easier to argue that writing the code and building the governor capabilities into the product in the first place inflate the price of the product to begin with (because adding and supporting "features" require both initial investment and maintenance), and then using the product to it's actual limit is artificially inflated, because they can.

The cost to JD to manufacture the tractor with lower horsepower limited by the software lockout is the same as it is to manufacture the tractor without the software governor. That's why it looks like a scam -- JD doesn't spend a dime to deliver the upgrade. They get paid for removing the artificial limits on the product.

No one is saying that different hardware (or even software) features of the tractor shouldn't be configurable and charged accordingly, but the lock-out is different. JD is crippling the capabilities.

Not in favor of death threats, but if you are a public official and you do something so unpopular without a clear moral agenda (such as equal rights in the 60s) that it results in the vast majority of the people you ought to represent being so outraged that some threaten your life, maybe you ought to reexamine your policy choices.

Do you really need to tell people when there aren't any new jobs? No one is telling taxi drivers that their industry is shrinking fast due to Uber/Lyft, but they see the writing on the wall. The world is full of employment markets that dry up, and it is reasonable to look around once in a while are notice that.

Plumbing. Seriously.

So shockingly, people who have been fooled by a con artist (Trump) refuse to believe that they've been fooled.

And I get the argument that learning is difficult for some, and that union jobs are better than non-union jobs, and that it is difficult to move from an active job to one that is more sedentary. But so is losing your job in a dying industry and being unable to provide for your children, which is the alternative.

And I feel for them. I really do. They've been taken by the political equivalent of an email from a Nigerian prince. They wanted to believe so badly that they didn't check the history of the person making the promises, and ignored what facts they did get.

Yeah, that's crap.

Let's translate that philosophy to other "wrong" activities, shall we?

"Spending money is more exciting when it's stolen. Saving is much more meaningful if there is the possibility that someone can steal it."

"Life is more meaningful when someone is actively trying to kill you. Murder is much less exciting because it's wrong."

You see the problem? The notion that actively doing something awful to someone else makes what they have meaningful, and what you are doing exciting is just selfishness and justification.

You don't like monogamy? No one is forcing you into it. Unhappy with your [life | partner | marriage | whatever] and you think the answer is outside your agreed upon monogamous relationship? End it. Divorce is legal. Breaking up without marriage is even easier. There is no tyranny is a relationship you enter into of your own volition.

You have children? Don't be an asshole and hurt their other parent because you have issues. End the relationship before starting another one. Be the person your children can respect.

The other person in the relationship? Don't be that. Because you are being a party to deceit. No, you aren't the one cheating, and that justification only goes so far, but it still shows a base selfishness that informs your character. You ought to expect to be hated, because that weakness and selfishness that makes up your character is the instrument that harms someone else. In the pain that is being caused, you are the weapon that is being used by the person cheating to hurt their partner.