sagichmal

I don't know how long you've been out of the workforce, but I haven't had a job that told me when to arrive, when to leave, how or where to do my work, or what to wear, in almost 20 years.

It is incorrect to think of the things under discussion here as "rights activism", as something unrelated to the mission of the company.

> Why is this the future?

Here is an interview with someone using CRDTs to build an edge state product that answers this question at a high level.

https://www.infoq.com/articles/state-edge-peter-bourgon

1000% this.

Do you think this isn't obvious? Why do you take the time to point it out?

Do you think that this comment provides new information to literally anybody who is reading it? Given the answer is obviously "no", what do you think the actual effect is? Do you understand that it reads as a defense of the status quo?

What is the purpose of this comment? It has the appearance of being a defense of an unjust status quo. Is that your intent? Or do you think a "reminder" of the existence and consequences of unjust power structures serves some other, useful purpose? It doesn't, but I'm interested to know your rationale.

> TLA+'s place is as part of your design process ... By spending a bit of time thinking about the design, and using tools like TLA+ to validate that design

I think you dramatically underestimate the amount of effort required to produce a formal model of any nontrivial system, and overestimate the stability of system definitions in response to changing business requirements.

At a far far slower pace, maybe.

I don't know where to start here. If you think those quotes reflect a hatred of men, you're without context to such a degree that I don't think we can even begin to have a conversation about it.

I'm a white man and I don't have a problem with any of that. I think it's essentially all true. Can you square that?

The fallacy on display here is false equivalence. I agree that both parties bend facts and exploit logistical loopholes to serve their own interests. I agree that it's easy to find examples of hypocrisy in both parties. But Republicans do these things so much more frequently, and, especially now, so much more nakedly and freely, that it's actually a categorically different thing. It's totally disingenuous to say they both do it and therefore they're both the same.

> Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything,

That's the only angle! Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year, and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now. This level of naked malevolence is exclusively the domain of the Republicans. And so _of course_ the Democrats should pack the court -- they should double the size of the bench. It's the only reasonable response to things so far. And that's not malevolence, that's equinimity.

Yes, the Democrats would absolutely not be so nakedly malevolent. Is this not overwhelmingly apparent?

There is absolutely no meaningful equivalence on this axis between the American right and left. Your projection about white men is totally incoherent, laughable.

I don't view this as laudable. The debate that's occurring is a principled one and remaining stoically indifferent isn't virtuous, it's contemptible.

The plugin package was an experiment and is basically now abandoned, it's not meant for real use.

> Plugins and scripting languages flourish when they democratize the process of adding features to a piece of code . . . In the best addon ecosystems, the core maintainers put some safety rails on the system so the addons can't do anything too crazy. Then they watch the cream of the crop and start trying to include them in the base functionality (limiting the number of optional features the majority of their users have to manually pick).

Well, it's a cost/benefit judgment call, not a single valuation. And I think for situations like this, if you have to pick a side, it's generally better to pick the exclusionary walled garden over the bazaar -- I think the value of democratization is usually overstated, and the drawbacks underemphasized.

> Rather than being pre-compiled and linked, however, plugins are executed on the fly by Yaegi, an embedded Go interpreter.

Woof, no thank you.

Go is basically incompatible with any kind of plugin-like dynamic linking. There are basically two reasonable models for doing something like plugins: the HashiCorp model, where plugins are actually separate processes that do some kind of intra-process communication with the host; or the Caddy model, where you select which plugins you want when downloading the binary, and they're built-in at compile time.

What do you think is a more effective way to deradicalize white nationalists as measured on a societal level: engaging them on the merits of their arguments and having a good-faith debate, or deplatforming them?

I'm not really begging the question, because I'm not trying to convince anyone that a general policy of individual empathetic outreach isn't effective at a macro scale. For one thing, it's self-evident, and I'm not really interested in "debating" anyone who would challenge that. For another thing, it's a tangent from the main point of the thread.

Haha, obviously not?

building personal relationships with individuals in order to deradicalize them one by one is not a viable strategy at the macro level. It's efficacy is irrelevant to me.

Beyond a certain scale there are by definition no good programmers or bad programmers, there are only average programmers. So it seems pretty clear to me that depending on them to be experts is a losing proposition.

well, Go is definitely not worse than average in this regard.

This is true of every language.

I don't really care so much about the individual voter, I care about how far their voice reaches on the Internet, I care about the people they influence, I care about their children, I care about higher-level things.

You're not acting in good faith here, and it's both obvious and hilarious. You respond to someone summarizing decades of malignant propagandizing with, literally, a Whataboutism dredging up a single minor procedural issue, out of context, from like 23 years ago, and pretend that single disingenuous statement disarms the thing it's responding to. This is -- you are -- exactly what I'm talking about.

That's the whole point: I'm not interested in a "conversation" on the topic because there isn't one to be had.

Friendship is an even stronger signal of tacit endorsement and there are situations, positions where it's inappropriate, even morally unjustifiable, to deploy. Scalia would certainly qualify for me.

> This strategy single handedly abolished more KKK members than anything else.

Obviously this is not true.

Republicans in 2020 are absolutely and inarguably doing those things.

Every vote for that party in our zeitgeist is motivated in no small part by active malignancy. It's the defining characteristic of their leader, unavoidable and undeniable, and as of the convention the party literally has no platform except to serve and support his whims. So there is absolutely a right and a wrong side to things right now.