rudolf0

>Gay marriage is just the final nail in the coffin of marriage, which was already basically dead. It's a mind-bogglingly stupid hill to die on, but nobody ever accused conservatives of brilliance.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you for or against gay marriage?

To what degree does this contradict Einstein's theory of gravity?

I still use gevent any time I need async code. It's also easy to tack onto existing projects with its monkey patching. I've never seen a need to migrate away from gevent, even if it's inarguably a language hack.

>That may be when the "typically" happen, but you can still get race conditions where you have two tasks that can run next, and you accidentally write an assumption about which will happen into your code when there is no such assumption in the scheduler.

What are some async coding styles where this is prevented? I feel like making incorrect order-of-execution/arrival time assumptions could be an issue for any kind of async code.

I was actually just parroting claims of message arrival time/sync inconsistencies in this thread. I don't use the app too much, in part because nearly everyone I know uses Skype instead of Discord, but I've never personally experienced a bug.

My personal biggest gripe is the lack of easy searching. I rely on it a lot, and Skype usually does an okay job at it (even though it can often be slow and tends to lag the UI).

Valid point.

I personally like the UI/UX, except some of the channel management features. It took me some time to figure out how to set ranks and give permissions.

I think Discord is on a path to be a suitable replacement for IRC, Slack, and Skype.

They still need some polishing, but once they fix some bugs and add good support for history and searching, I think it'll be fantastic.

I don't think YC's brand has been criticized much more than it has in the past. I think the Thiel drama is the worst they've had to deal with in the past year or two.

Where have you seen more YC promotion?

I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy there. Some engineers are willing to work in a harsh, toxic environment if they think the founder isn't delusional and is actually onto something. I presume that's how Apple employees felt.

People are willing to put up with authoritarian assholes if they think their vision is worth implementing.

>What if you write an email to an enemy?

Then I would probably prefer to use <blink> and <marquee>.

Good firewalls can make good security easier.

It's even more slimey in the enterprise space.

I'd like to think that the majority of people involved with the industry in some way have good intentions, but once you start involving, sales, marketing, and certain executives...

I've been reading the New Yorker for years (though I feel they've become even more politically charged than usual within the past year and have since stopped) and was always irked by those damn diaereses.

It makes "oo" easier to parse as separate syllables, but English has a huge amount of non-phonetic words. Why does this get an exception?

>But I know from experience that trying to read a text with long run-on sentences or with obnoxious grammatical features (like an overuse of subordinate clauses) can feel like pure suffering.

It seems to me that until the 20th century, this was considered the "fashionable" and proper way to write. Most of the intellectuals of the time seemed to write this way. I wonder why?

The real confusing part is why this didn't happen earlier.

Or, more likely, it did happen earlier but the attackers weren't properly weaponizing or "botkilling" / patching the devices?

That seems like a huge stretch, considering he himself is and was a politician known for phone communication-related scandals... I imagine she'd much, much rather use a burner than his phone, if that were the intent.

I think avoiding the FOIA is bad (and possibly illegal, if intent is proven?), but not that horrible.

The careless handling of classified information is worse, in my opinion.

Apologies, I appear to have been misled from some of the sources I read (like http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-clas...). In particular, I wasn't aware there were some top secret emails in there (apparently marked as such?).

Apparently some emails were not properly marked, but some clearly were. I've revised my post.

The allegation is that she was using private email to conduct official government business while she served as Secretary of State (one of the highest-ranking positions in the government; chief diplomat).

This was likely done to avoid requirements to turn over emails in cases of FOIA requests, or I think a few other conditions. There's supposed to be some degree of transparency in government communications.

By itself, that alone isn't too bad, I think. But the other reason why government officials should use government infrastructure for communications is security.

Messages that were classified after-the-fact (not at the time) were found to have been sent to/from Clinton's private server. I believe some messages that were classified at the time were also there, but were improperly marked, so someone could plausibly claim they did not know they were classified.

EDIT: There were in fact many emails properly marked as classified at the time. Some marked top secret. This definitely demonstrates carelessness. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286513-fbi-direc...

Further, after she received a subpoena from the FBI to turn over all emails on her server, 33,000 emails were allegedly deleted. This doesn't necessarily mean anything, but could indicate a cover-up of something shady or even illegal.

For the most part it's just a lot of speculation and character judgment. Even if this second investigation doesn't find anything illegal, it shows someone trying to shield themselves from public scrutiny at best, or potentially trying to cover things up at worst.

Sure, but that's just pure speculation.

Especially considering what they're charging for it.

I bought and still heavily use the most recent MBP model. I don't think I'll be upgrading for a long time. Retina + Force Touch + pretty good specs is more than enough for me.

So, everything is slowly converging on Scala? (Though of course none will reach the asymptote that is Scala's feature count.)

What about people who are hybrids?

I wonder how a programmer from the 80s would react if they were given a time machine and this was their first experience with modern programming.

>Well, it's an argument for racial profiling if certain races actually are more dangerous.

When you say "more dangerous" do you mean "inherently more dangerous" or "more likely to commit crimes per capita"? Because if it's the latter, then depending on how you define "race" some of these statistics are already known.

Not a bad idea, but this isn't a thing browsers currently do, and the average person can't do that with ease. Especially considering this web app is aimed at non-tech savvy individuals.

Foval and Creamer are disgusting, but it remains unclear how much power they had in the DNC at large and if Hillary was aware of any of it. From the undercover recordings, they seem to me like megalomaniacs who see themselves as Machiavellian gods or something, which is a common theme for middle-managers overstating their reach. Maybe it'll be revealed the upper tiers were aware of what they were doing, but it also seems plausible they were self-initiated.

It's sentiments like this that still give Trump a serious shot at winning, even if more scandals about him are unveiled. I hate both but am voting for Clinton, but can very much understand your position.

The whole "basket of deplorables", virtue signalling, moral superiority thing turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You also have to consider that Thiel himself very likely is not a racist (and obviously not a homophobe etc.). He likely does not see Trump as racist or sexist. He may be misguided and may hold some crazy and infeasible ideas, but Thiel doesn't seem evil to me. He's probably attracted to Trump's other features and rationalizes the rest of his behavior.

I disagree that Trump would be such a shoe-in for 2020. The Democrats just need a better candidate.

I think with the currently developing scandals (especially sexual assault allegations), and likely many more scandals between 2016 and 2020, they'd need someone even less liked than Hillary for him to have a shot.

The bigger threat is indeed whatever media empire he might try to launch after the election. (Scarily, I could picture him doing so whether he wins or loses.)