But we didnt develop our own programming language to do this though.
1,528 karma · joined May 2, 2012
From another Dutchie: get better friends
>some trauma from biking through a cloud of exhaust in Rotterdam
Now you are providing that trauma to others. At least drive something electric if you live in the city. It will be mandatory within cities soon anyway.
>Turns out cars are the bikes I always wanted.
Even in Rotterdam, if everyone switches to a car, it wouldn't fit. The only reason you find it pleasant to drive is because others aren't.
>There are better hopes for the environment too (ie electric scooters + public transport and electric cars/motorcycles, synthetic diesel fuel).
Yes to the first, but cars are too big by default. People should not own a car when living in a city. They should rent one on the days they need it.
It's not just the space the car takes when you drive it. It's the space it takes when you park it. Go visit places where everyone takes the car. Everything is far apart because it's separated by oceans of parking. The average US city ends up dedicating more space to parking than to everything else combined.
And yes, public transit is a great alternative, but only works with a minimum amount of population density, which cities indeed do have. But even in villages people should go at least electric, and the center should be car free, so it becomes a destination for people. No one wants to eat out next to a parking lot.
Going for the type of deal these countries have with the EU would have been very smart. You still get to have your borders, you are not paying in, etc. But trade deals are approved by the whole bloc. If you don't want that then you are less integrated with the European economy than Turkey.
Honestly, if you aren't aware of the different layers of collaboration within Europe (with an EU member state being the highest form), you really shouldn't pretend to be able to say anything meaningful about it.
This is so far removed from reality, i have to ask: which Murdoch outlet has been misinforming you?
Their MT for Chinese to Dutch was trained on Chinese translations but used for Dutch translations.
So the claim that there is no substantiation is false. You just didn't bother to find out.
Can you give an example of someone being banned for voicing an opinion? I'm not from the US so i may not have been paying too close attention. But lies aren't opinions. The truth isn't an opinion for that matter either. Example: The earth revolves around the sun (fact), there is a 5g microchip in the vaccine (lie), the US education system is really bad because I have to give you these examples (opinion).
It is not about the topic. It is about how it is phrased. If I were to say you rank the worst, it would be a lie.
So I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if what you are saying is true. (they are censoring opinions). But it's not an opinion. It's either true or you are a liar.
>We've only just now reached a point where politicians are being targeted, which is kind of insane.
That your politicians can tell prvbable lies but that your electorate doesn't instant fire them is crazy. No accountability. Seems like a much larger problem to me. And people not distinguishing between objective and subjective matters like you will cause the US to collapse. That is my opinion though. I don't have facts, because I can't actually tell the future.
Impressive though, how "the West" does all that project management and is capable of coordinating all their lies in so many different languages across so many different cultures and so many different ideologies and religions.
The trap, like always, is in the premise. This isn't Russia vs the West. Like its two superpowers battling.
This is an authoritarian hierarchical regime vs Ukraine. That same regime vs Poland. That same regime vs Finland. The same regime vs "empty sign holders".
The West is not some kind of homogenous blob. The few times all media across all these countries say the same thing, is when the other side is lying pants-on-fire.
They are literally suggesting Greece, Turkey, Germany and Poland are conspiring and coordinating to harm a hasbeen superpower with an economy the size of a potato of which half is energy exports. And the little bit of money they do make is then spend on the military, but due to the corruption, all ends up in apartments in London and yachts in Italy.
Yeah, as a Dutch person, this always annoyed me to no extend. We have our wealthy liberal paradise, where spoiled pacifists spend their time making easy judgement about war decisions and sacrifices others make. Without any self realization that it is american troops and defense dollars patrolling the borders of our paradise enabling both the free speech & the prosperity to do so.
Thankfully, now that reality came knocking on the door, people realize and understand. But we do need to hold out a few years, before we have scaled it all up.
It definitely is the fault of governments and cultures like mine, but i'm going to give the Germans' a free pass on this, because their hesitation was more understandable. They can't invest in bombs without the world getting stressed and asking whom they are for. Now they can, because no one needs to ask.
>the US had a leader that was unpredictable and relatively aggressive
That made it harder for us to trust him as well, but yeah, in terms of dealing with foreign aggression, "crazy" is not a "crazy" strategy.
But please realize that much of the polarization within the US is of Russian design. Feeding into it is one way we all would loose. It is not just Europe that has an enemy here. Quite the opposite. We are just physically closer, but we don't live rent free in their FSB minds, the way the US does.
But this is not a war against NATO or even America. It is a war against Europe.
We have drastically increased our defense spending but it will take at least 5 years for Europe to be able to take on Russia by itself (with enough dominance that it will not destroy everything). Russia on the other hand is also not ready. And with the sanctions they can't afford to become ready.
Any American calling for appeasement or somehow suggesting this is all actually the US fault's. It's not at all. It's not about NATO, it's not about America.
It's about Russia being run as an authoritarian imperialistic etno state. The true demand is: we govern you and you join our war against the west: economically, politically and militarily. You either speak Russian or you die. You either become the property of the FSB, the oliargs and Putin or you die. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakie, Latvia, Finland.. they are all next in line. And they are not making a secret of this!
The idea that there is anything but a full out war that will stop the Russians is ridiculous. We have no chill for more appeasement or supposed neutrality or diplomacy. You are not negotiating with a France or an America. You are negotiating with people who see any type of 'giving in' as weakness and encouragement to take more. We are not going to wait until the Russians our on our front doors as well.
At this rate within the next decade Europe will be spending more on its defenses than the US. That may be a good thing. But please, Americans, understand, this is a loyalty check for Europe and a strenght check for all your enemies. Don't blink. When talking about Russia only growl.
Everytime the US appeases, Russia is encouraged to do more violence, more aggression. The more clarity the US gives on when and how it will enter war, the less likely it is for the war to take place. And we really just need you guys to have the discpline for the next few years, and then we won't ever need US soldiers patrolling our borders, which seems fair and important (because there are more threats in this world than just the Russians!)
And even then Europe will spend and spend on miltary until we can take the nukes away from Russia by force. We won't be save until that day. So that's the end goal.
The only way to prevent full out war is if the Russian people rise up. Putin is not considering their future at all. He is old and going out with a bang and taking the whole country with him, and Europe is done appeasing. Kicking Russia out of Swift has the direct implication that many European nations are now war-time economies. Basic things like heating will require dratistic government interventions. Defense spendings are going up drastically over night. Europe is effectively mobilizing in the background. And how could we not? He is not going to stop at Ukraine. He is coming for us all.
WWIII has started and the only thing that can stop it is if the Russian people prevent it. If they stand up. Otherwise, my safety, your safety, the safety of your friends and families is not garantueed. Otherwise it becomes a choice of a whole continent enslaved by one man -or- a whole continent destroyed.
Europe does not believe he will stop at Ukraine. Consider the implications, please. Tell your family & friends. His behavior is too erradic. The basic assumption is that war is inevitable.
That this is not some abstract far away war for us?
Can you give an example of such an ability and the kind of tradeoffs we are talking about here?
>It is not always possible to just do a quick read of a language to understand its decisions.
A successful programming language to me seems to be much more about being able to communicate the design clearly.
How is it data oriented in a way languages that don't call themselves data oriented are not? Which constructs do you have they are lacking? Concrete example of an algorithm that is now better/easier to implement?
I agree that some people are not very good at communication and might in theory or perhaps accidentally still be able to design a language with interesting choices, but the world will never know about it.
The reason you got confused about that is because actual newspaper behave like opinion magazines these days too.
Yet these mind reading devices do not exist. Is it because there are other ways to establish intent?
> A rule that you can break by having the right or wrong thoughts isn't a rule.
Yet somehow those kinds of rules are enforced in a courtroom thousands of times a week.
In this context, deception would have been proven by simply proving the person knew the information was untrue. You be surprised how often people publicly admit to that in some other context. And then suddenly "intent" is proven.
>Words have generally agreed upon meanings,
Especially in a legal context. But that doesn't make the classification of "promoting false information" easier.
We had chat, messaging, pages. All decentralized. No ads. Just worked. Jabber, email, etc.
FB is a national security issue. If you love your country, you pray or fight for the ban of anything Mark touches.
I love database where queries and commands are not declarative but imperative. Like RethinkDB or Mongo.
Databases with this type of syntax.
But to use this syntax for an SQL database is a horrible mistake, because it is misleading.
It's horrible btw. You can't even tell if and when order in this syntax is important.
It's also not clear if it's declarative or operational syntax. But since they are compiling to SQL it has to be the first. Yet the syntax strongly misleads people into assuming a particular execution strategy.
Not even naming of things is consistent (why shorten "array" into "arr" but not minute into "min").
It just looks like random syntax choices, without a cohesive rationale made by people that think the declarative syntax of SQL looks worse than for-loops, completely ignoring that the database will not execute anything the way it is structured here.
Double so if they did bother to make many long claims about it being superior.
If there is anything here, the communication is really bad.
1. Start with a hello world example.
2. Add a concrete comparison (i.e. an example in both Malloy or SQL) for each claim.
For now, you are just wasting people's time releasing this like this.
All tell, no show? It's vaporware.
The name is great. Keep it.
Neither taxes or GDP can explain this well.
For 330 million people: no.
To compare: the US occupation of Afghanistan cost about this much per year, but that budget has been freed up.
I live in Europe and I see the same lack of basic understanding of finance. People claim the EU costs a lot of money. And it does. But not per person. Not at all.
And any reporter that talks about macro economic numbers like this without normalizing it per capita is either an idiot or is intentionally manipulating.
Obviously, if we just get rid of regulations entirely, the corruption problem will be solved.
.. or maybe the carton of milk i buy can now kill me.
I specifically take offence that you were suggesting on a forum like this that Amsterdam is some anti-capitalist stronghold, which is just ridiculous, and if you spread that notion in a place like this, you are doing economic harm to the Netherlands, which i am assuming you are part of. So that would be .. not so smart.
>I said GroenLinks was dominant under upper white middle class
It's not though. It's dominant under all those students here. Amsterdam is also a student city. Which makes sense, since its a progressive environmentally reactionary party, but their demographics dont really extend beyond 30.
>Which it is since it's the biggest party in the council at the moment
We don't have a first past the pole system, so 'biggest' doesn't mean anything. No single party has a majority. In terms of ideologies there is a progressive majority, there is a capitalist majority, there is an environmental majority.
The previous city election had a lot of VVDers voting for GL because they want to kick the cars out of the center. (which would double the property value of most real estate there)
But now compare those results to the results of the general election in Amsterdam, where they are just the 3rd party, after both D66 and the VVD.
>And is by far, with it's dominant leader, the most dominant voice in the current council; to call them left is not a stretch, it's in their name.
Femke is not dominant at all. She doesn't actually set the policy, she reports to the Hague. Thats how a mayor works in the Netherlands. The central government generally doesn't want to deal with anyone not in the inner circle of national politics. And making her mayor was Rutte trying to buy some votes in the 1st chamber, when his coalition didn't have a majority there any more.
She does have the ability to veto in her position, or to give a direct order to the police, and she has used it twice so far. The first time was when the city councel wanted to ban booze on boots in the canals, and she considered it unenforceable and ridiculous. The other was quite recently, when she banned fireworks for this New Years Eve. In both cases, i suspect she did that based on direct feedback by the police deparment.
>the house restrictions policy for sure can be described as anti capitalistic since they limit the free use of your capital (,house)
The basis of capitalism are: - ability to incorporate (the company itself being a legal entity) - contract law (the words in the contract holier than any human relationship) - state monopoly on violence (enforcing the exact words in the contract) - regulated and well defined ability to own things (esspecially real-estate)
If cars weren't regulated, you wouldn't dare buy one. If hotels aren't regulated, tourists wouldn't dare to come. You need the gilds, you need a waag, you need a court and a city hall where all the merchants can use a democratic process to avoid the tragedy of the commons.
So, your example. You don't own the land. It's all a lease. A lease of which the terms can change at will, by the true property owner, which is the city of Amsterdam, which is owned by the state.
The merchant of Amsterdam democratically decided they prefer less AirBnB, because it means more monies on average. Because tourists are poor, and residents are rich.
>Or only allowing buyers that will live in the houses.
Again, the city buys what it wants. It wants a high income earner to come live in Amsterdam, and they are much more likely to do that, when they aren't burning their rent. Same thing with social housing. We all need nurses, teachers and police officers. If they can't live here, the city can't hire them. If they can't teach, heal and protect its rich citizen, they will leave.
>but it's definitely not a stretch for me to classify them as left.
I understand, and i would definatley agree that GL brands itself as left wing. But you shouldn't confuse the marketing for the products.
There are very few people in the city counsel without a fat stock portfolio. Amsterdam is a very capitalistic place. If you still dont believe me, try getting an organic juice at one of the far-left hippie bars in Amsterdam Noord for free.
When there are enough ICU nurses available to meet the demand.
>Doesn’t seem like freedom to me.
Again, can you give me a definition. It sounds like something 'empty' an American would say. Do you mean, Liberty? Like from the French Revolution?
This discussion doesn't matter in the US anyway, because you already have economic triage, where there is just no hospital near poor people. So in the US, the poor people are just 'free to die'.
I can't edit my comment any more (or else i would have added this).
It seems nobody even bothered to count and plot the thing that would actually inform us properly.