kazoomonger

> The poor do not elevate the poor out of poverty.

What a bizarre, paternalistic take. This is the same sort of narcissistic logic that led to Reagan's golden showers^W^W trickle-down economics.

I mean, I agree about entrepeneurs. Historically, the thing that has lifted communities out of poverty has been entrepeneurs in that community that contribute back to it. In other words, the poor very much elevate the poor out of poverty.

The rest of your comment (e.g. "and, yes, the rich") is just weird apologetics for people that don't need it, and can pay for it anyways, so why are you wasting your time doing it for free?

It's not a "no true Scotsman" argument because "help" is a vague term to begin with.

Lots of churches say nice things while extracting maximum revenue from their congregation. Can you point to any actual political changes that have occurred as a result, or is it just some nice words?

They really don't. You're misusing the word "lobby".

Churches and charities don't lobby politically for poor people, they take them on as a righteous burden to bear. Some churches and charities are even used as tax breaks for rich people.

Unions used to, to some degree. They've mostly been neutered and have very limited political capital.

"It's everybody" just does not capture reality.

I got a tax benefit semi-recently by buying an electric car, about $7500. It was the largest I've ever gotten. Compare that to one small crumb of Trump's tax deductions that was covered by the New York Times. A $70k tax deduction for hair styling.

It's just not the same. Wealth gives you an outsized influence on politics, which lets you accumulate more wealth, at a faster rate than those poorer than you.

That was a lot of extra words around the crucial bit:

> It is based on incentivizing behavior through tax breaks/credits.

Who do you think has time and money to spend lobbying for new tax breaks to their benefit? Hint: it's not the poor

In sane countries, the "popular view" holds, as it should. Not so much in the US, though. The IRS knows how much I make, I want them to send me a form that says "we think you made this much, if that's true and you have no fancy deductions, sign here".

Then I just sign a form and return it instead of slogging through the bullshit that Intuit et al has lobbied for.

When using tooling that accepts YAML (or JSON) configuration, I always want something to say "this is what you can write that will have an effect".

As a specific example, when I'm writing a snapcraft.yaml, I want to be able to view a schema to see what all I can put in there. What's important is that the schema is actually used by snapcraft itself for validation, otherwise it's no better than the rest of the snapcraft documentation, which is pretty meh. Schemas are also easy to digest for other tooling, so e.g. my editor can automatically highlight when I make a mistake, without having to specifically write a plugin for each tool that accepts JSON/YAML

You cannot seriously be trying to advocate for hospitals being run with unvaccinated staff.

> We treated your asthma attack, sorry about the covid that you got while you were here, hope those two things don't affect each other

I have to agree with the other commenter that you're either not arguing in good faith, or you're so blindly ideologically driven that you've thrown basic reasoning skills out the window.

This is a pretty lazy dismissal that doesn't even make clear the connection you're trying to make.

How is open salary information the same as paying everyone $1M/year?

THC is still illegal at the federal level, if that's what you mean. The federal government is just being dragged kicking and screaming into sanity by individual states that are legalizing it.

I think you're looking in the wrong places. I recently bought a nice bike for $600 that worked great on a 100 mile ride. If I hadn't gone to the fancy, trendy bike co-op, it probably would've been cheaper.

Since I can't edit the above comment, one additional thought is that your criticism is valid for a language like Python, which has a much higher tolerance for abstractions such as green threads being built into the language itself. It would've been interesting if Python had gone with a solution other than async/await.

I'm also a little confused when you say "Rust started with green threading/fibers". I think the term "fiber" is overloaded here, but Rust did start with green threads (M:N preemptive multitasking). Rust now has support for cooperative multitasking via async/await. From what I can find of UCMG, it kind of misuses the term fiber. Looks like it's just green threads that the kernel is aware of?

> But 10 years out it's not entirely implausible that if Rust had stuck with fibers that it may have driven the required OS improvements ...

Rust would've been a language nobody had heard of. It wouldn't have driven anyone to do anything because it wouldn't have had widespread adoption in the first place. As-is I'm using it in embedded programming and loving it. I certainly would never have picked Go for that.

I think you're not really understanding Rust's approach here. Green threads would be much too heavyweight to build into the language itself, and would mostly preclude it from being seriously used in interesting domains like embedded programming.

I don't have an deep source on this, but it looks like this is not something new. https://www.etymonline.com/word/milk says:

> Of milk-like plant juices or saps from c. 1200.

IDK, I think this quote from your link sums up my attitude towards that:

> Linked lists are as niche and vague of a data structure as a trie. Few would balk at me claiming a trie is a niche structure that your average programmer could happily never learn in an entire productive career -- and yet linked lists have some bizarre celebrity status. We teach every undergrad how to write a linked list. It's the only niche collection I couldn't kill from std::collections. It's the list in C++!

> We should all as a community say no to linked lists as a "standard" data structure. It's a fine data structure with several great use cases, but those use cases are exceptional, not common.

I have never in my professional career used or to my knowledge relied upon a singly-linked list, to say nothing of a doubly-linked list. That feels like picking something to be contrarian, not because it exemplifies a good case of where Rust is too strict. Just use a Vec? It's way more performant anyways.

I would interested in seeing an example of what sort of type errors you mean. IME, the Rust compiler does a great job of catching actual mistakes in the type system, such as with Send/Sync. It also pretty easily lets you tell the compiler "no, I know what I'm doing" and say "unsafe impl Send for Foo {}" to do it anyways.

I'll admit that I like Rust, but this seems like an odd take to me. "Not distracting me with type errors" seems directly at odds with "safer overall", especially for a missile launching system. That sounds like a recipe for "Whoops, there goes New York, but at least the code looked nice".

I suspect the segment that I'm in is pretty huge. I recently got Starlink. I got it mostly because it was alright internet and I really fucking hate Comcast. They're the only landline option that I have in a suburban area, and fiber internet is unlikely to come here any time soon.

I mean sure, I'd rather our legislators actually do their job and pass a law enforcing local loop unbundling, but until that point Starlink is a breath of fresh, competitive air.

> it was either execution or abandon them to starve on the desert on their own

Yeah, that's cruel and unforgiving. Surely an all-powerful deity could've sprouted a few plants and let the kids join the conquerors with enough food.

The much more reasonable explanation is that this was purely human cruelty created by a lack of resources because there never was a higher power helping them out in the first place.

I think this analogy doesn't quite hold, as you don't have athletes saying "I can't throw as far as you because of gravity", whereas you really do have people making ridiculous claims when it comes to weight loss.

> it's pretty obvious the second half is false

It's really not. As I said above, people are not identical. Yes, evolution doesn't produce perfectly consistent results. However, absorbing nutrients is the direct foundation for the only thing that matters in the process of evolution: reproduction. You can't reproduce if you die from lack of nutrients. Given how much of humanity's existence has been staving off starvation and famine, any improvements would be heavily selected for, and would quickly spread.

As an extreme example, if you could survive on an apple per day, the next famine that rolled around would leave you pretty free to repopulate with your superdigestive genes, since most everyone else would be dead.

> You went to the trouble of mentioning CICO and then totally forgot about CO!

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make in this paragraph. Even if some people "run hot" or they have some magic gut that lets them survive on an apple per day or whatever, it's still a fundamental truth that if they're fat, they're eating too much. Yes, someone can exercise more or whatever to change their output, but the reason they're currently fat is because they're currently eating too much.

> It's self evident that CICO is true. It's just completely worthless for providing any insight. Very much a thought-terminating cliché as originally described.

Yes, no, and no. As described above, there really are people that think "I eat just an apple a day and I can't lose weight!". CICO is a baseline for saying "no, that's impossible". It's not a thought-terminating cliché, it's making sure that everybody is on the same page of accepting basic science.

CICO is 100% backed up by science. The point of repeating CICO is that there are people that legitimately try claiming "I ate only an apple a day and I can't lose weight!". This is clearly impossible.

Now, you can get more specific than that and say "well this medical condition makes you more hungry" or "this medical condition means you can't get as much energy as you should from eating". But fundamentally, a condition like say PCOS isn't magic. It doesn't make you absorb food better, otherwise we would have already evolved to use that absorption process.

Having said all that: yes, no two people are exactly the same, we're not bunsen burners, etc. But the reason you're[1] fat is because you eat too much.

[1]: general you, not you specifically

From your own link:

> “That was not an official contract between Palantir and Cambridge Analytica, but there were Palantir staff that would come into the office and work on that data,” Wylie told lawmakers. He added that Palantir staff “helped build the models we were working on.”

> it’s attaching a cryptographic voucher to every photo uploaded to iCloud that, if some number of photos represent hash matches

OK, but what if Apple silently pushes out an update (or has existing code that gets activated) that "accidentally" sets that number to zero? Or otherwise targets a cryptographic weakness that they know about because they engineered it? That wouldn't require "significant modification".

Funamentally, it's closed software and hardware. You can't and shouldn't trust it. Even if they did do some "significant modification" how are you going to notice/prove it?

100% this. I have spent a lot of money on bandcamp. I really wish there was an equivalent of bandcamp for movies and shows.

There are enough used cars available today that I'm pretty sure I could just buy used for the rest of my life and not have to worry about that.

I don't think I will have to worry about it though because if such legislation ever passed, it wouldn't be long before someone got stranded in the middle of nowhere and died next to a perfectly functional car that refused to start up, the media would make a big deal about it, and the legislation would be reverted.

The difference is between this and say mandatory seatbelts is that the car won't refuse to start if it thinks that someone isn't buckled. I would refuse to buy a car that did try that, as that's just asking for inconvenient sensor failures that leave you stranded.

I'm not sure what you mean? This is the entire and only topic that I have talked about, straight from your original comment:

> Before there was Climate Change, there was Global Warming.

> Why was there a name change, a rebranding if you will?

That quote contains factually incorrect information, as discussed above.

I actually just started using emacs recently, specifically doom emacs. It works smoothly out of the box and is super easy to enable LSP for.

I'm not going to try to convince anybody to switch, but if you ever try emacs again, would definitely recommend trying out doom emacs.

> Here in France, i don't know of any evidence that patriarchal control is stricter/stronger in muslims than in atheists/jews/christians/hindus/etc

It seems obvious to me that there's an association there. For example, compulsory hijabs only exist in muslim countries.

> muslim expressions of patriarchy are more scrutinized/opposed

Maybe in France, towards French muslims. I don't think that the muslim world cares at all what western countries have to say on the topic, though.