1,581 karma · joined October 22, 2022
What power does the IRS have to automatically do anyone's taxes? Not only would that require laws to change, which the IRS does not have the ability to change, but it would also require access to a huge amount of private info fed either by private citizens or corporations.
I disagree. I mean, the ergonomics in this case are indeed awful, but this has nothing to do with C++, modern or not. This is an API design problem, possibly made worse by people trying to be too clever for their own good.
Requiring a lambda capturing stuff and be passed around is not what I would call "pay less", when the alternative is just adding a block and instantiate a std::lock_guard
I don't agree. It sounds like a higher level path to deadlocks.
> Maybe instead combine the two ideas. MutexProtected<T> but can be locked with MutexProtected<T>::lock() which returns a MutexLocked<T> object. That object then cleans up the lock when it goes out of scope, and also provides direct access to the enclosed type.
It sounds like you're trying to invent std::lock_guard with extra steps.
Actually you do. One is a component specified by international standards, which is ideal, while the other is yet another third party component.
Unless you only work on hobby projects, adding dependencies is a maintenance liability. You need very good and compelling reasons to add a dependency, and it doesn't seem you have any.
> And thus far, that best tool is fmt.
You gave zero reasons to support your personal assertion. It's fine if you just hack stuff together in hobby projects, but pros doing pro work have to meet professional standards, which you failed to address.
How do metrics like deployment frequency and lead time for changes can have an impact on "the capabilities needed" by an org?
Honestly, your comment reads a bit like machine learning generated buzzword bingo.
Yes, extensively. You need a very good reason not to. Do you have one?
From the article, the Spanish researcher gamed publication metrics by co-signing huge volumes of research papers, and proceeded to sell his affiliation to the highest bidder as it allowed low-tier institutions to game rankings and bump up their standing.
There's also another angle to his scheme, as his threat to the university of Cordoba consisted of "you har my interests and your university will drop in rankings".
I wouldn't be surprised if that statement wasn't a bold face lie, and Raphael Luque was just stapling his name to papers and proceeded with a clickfarm-like business model, where he sells the impact that his publication metrics has on institutions who request his services.
The defiant tone in his reply is evocative of other corruption cases where the criminal is so confident in his clever scheme that he even taunts defiantly everyone to challenge it. Even the old "I don't have a cent in my bank account" bullshit excuse is as old as time. Next he might just say that he only has good, generous friends who give him some presents from time to time.
It sounds like these issues are artificial legal constructs caused by the law lagging behind where technology js, and it would be trivial to fix them.
For instance, I'm sure insurance companies would be eager to offer escooter insurance.
Cars are indeed a cancer on all urban spaces, and one which has been granted too much privileges for decades.
The Netherlands' Jokinen Plan[1] is widely used as the epitome of idiocy that we get by designing cities around cars.
But the fact is that services provided by multinationals like Lime do nothing to address this issue. People do not drop their cars for ebikes just because a multinational dropped one on the sidewalk.
Also, it's a red herring to portray services provided by multinationals like Lime as synonyms for replacing cars with alternatives. They do nothing of the sort, and it misrepresents the problem. Companies like Lime scatter crap around cities with impunity and expect the public to just suck it up. Any small business owner who did a fraction of the abusive practices of occupying the public space would be fined into bankruptcy.
Please don't.
There is no such thing as "scooter haters".
Companies like Lime are criticised for their abusive and antisocial business practices of dumping crap on the public space without any concern, criteria or care, and pretend everyone around them to just suck up the externalities to validate their business model.
No one cares if you ride your whatever on roads or bike lanes. People care when you dump your crap all over the place and get them in the way of everything. You'd hear the exact same complains if instead of escooters you dumped washing machines.
That's the whole point: they can't.
You cannot dump your crap on the street and expect that to be ok.
If you can't just park your car on any random sidewalk or dump your bike in the middle of the street, what leads you believe that it's ok for a multinational to dump their crap all over a city?
Construction companies have to file for permits and pay all kinds of fees to temporarily park a trash bin on the sidewalk. People have to pay fees to get the trash company to take care of furniture you want to throw out, and you still can't just leave it on the sidewalk. What leads you to believe that it's ok to dump all sorts of crap on a sidewalk, specially when they are mainly used for joyrides?
Meanwhile, there are countless solutions for personal mobility that have been around for ages. Hell, is a bicycle an alien concept? Let's not fool ourselves into believing that a multinational's abusive business model is the only way anyone can move from point A to B.
You somehow believe that the only options on the table for personal transport is either "2-ton fossil-fuel-burning cars" or the miraculous selfless service sold by a couple of multinationals.
It must be hard to intentionally ignore all the public transportation services in all shapes and forms, like railway, bus services, metro, trams, ride share, and even municipal bike sharing services,
and also ignore other personal transportation modes such as motorcycles, bikes and personal scooters
and also ignore e-car sharing services
and also ignore ride share services like taxicabs and etrikes.
For you, the only choice is either a gas-guzzler or the glorious service provided by a multinational.
Bullshit. These e-scooter sharing services operate on cities already covered by all sorts of public transportation services, including municipal e-bike services.
The key difference is that municipal services address and avoid the problem of abusive occupation of public space by employing networks of pickup/dropoff spots.
> Hey, Citizen, if you don't have the means to buy, store and charge your own and occasionally would need one to deal with the craziness and unreliability of public transport, we are going to make it harder on you.
Bullshit. These escooter sharing services operate in cities where public transportation is highly subsidized and monthly fees are mostly symbolic, with some cities being even totally free.
Also, a cursory search for escooters shows that there are scooters in the market for 120kg/13km autonomy for less than 300€, and they can be charged by simply plugging them onto any regular electrical socket.
> Many countries in Europe keep punishing people who don't own cars or other vehicles while pretending they care about the environment. They do the same with bikes or e-bikes.
You have zero insight or basis on reality to support any of your personal assertions. You've managed to be entirely wrong in each and any assertion you made.
The only shot at profitability of e-scooter sharing services depends on their ability to abuse public space without cost and dump all externalities on the communities they operate.
What's the rationale behind this nonsense?
I'd go a step beyond and claim that e-bike sharing services like Lime are extremely detrimental to an urban space while adding nothing to mobility and sustainability. They are mainly gimmicks used to litter urban spaces whose only purpose is to serve as a kind of coin-operated joyrides. These operators come in and dump truckloads of things onto the public space, scatter them around, and pretend that this is ok.
This ban has nothing to do with e-whatever, environment, mobility, or even economy. It's getting rid of an abusive practice that was a net loss for everyone involved.
What conclusions would those be?
> It’s not surprising the default critique on Reddit/Twitter is always using some European country with a homogeneous culture and a small population centered around ~2-3 major cities at most vs the entire US.
If you'd prefer you could compare whatever nation you'd like with individual US states. You have plenty of US states to pick and choose from.
Regardless, I don't see this sort of statistics rigour when comparing the US to "Europe" as a whole, in spite of the heterogeneous nature of the whole continent (some countries even have regions where people speak entirely different languages) and the fact that the population of "Europe" is well over twice that of the US.
But I guess the point might just be to shut down discussions to avoid conclusions and introspection.
You wrote this down yourself, and you still didn't get it?
What? OP's argument was purely race-based. OP made absolutely no point other than underlining race-based correlations. If you remove all race-based remarks from OP's post, nothing is left.
> It never discounted the possibility of other race-related factors (...)
In your own words, you describe OP's post as focusing on "race-related factors", and even then you try to accuse those who point that out of "projecting racist views"?
Are you serious?
I believe the argument that the A-10 is obsolete is the fact that nowadays the US armed forces have at their disposal far more efficient and safe ways to destroy ground targets and conduct close air support missions.
The design of something is irrelevant if it's obsolete. I'm sure there were exquisite buggy whips back in the day.
Here's an age-old HN post that amusingly enough is a top search hit on Google on this topic:
I'm not sure this means what you think it means.
The DOM was standardized, and became ubiquitous. From thereon, people built upon that not because it was great but because it was all there was. JavaScript is also all there is and was, and everyone agrees that it is everything but great. Even the inception of nodejs and demo is due to the fact that the infrastructure was already there.
Being pervasive is not the same thing as being good or decent.
Do you actually mean "pushing them up", or is this code for "filter out underperformers"?
This goes to the root of the issue. What is the whole point of a school? Is it to help students learn and improve? Or is it to serve as a series of challenges to eliminate and filter out people based on arbitrary people?
If the goal is to lift up people, you need to pick them up from down where they are at.
It's ok to claim that Qt's MOC optimizes for developer experience,and all other tradeoffs are acceptable.
> I don't have numbers to cite, but I think the attempts at replacing the moc with newer C++ lang features also usually didn't exactly hit the compiler fast paths.
This doesn't really matter. It's not just the MOC. Using Qt UI form files forces UIC into the picture, which also fails to be cached.
> Yes, perhaps optimizing the compilers would be nicer.
The compiler is not the problem. Obviously. WPF also uses code generators and it's not plagued with long build times.
> Maybe so, but this is not what my comment is about. What I'm saying is that MS has made much more invasive changes to C++ as a language than Qt has in its platforms or frameworks, e.g. compiler-backed extended and different behavior. Or look at C++/CX (since phased out, thankfully).
This reads like whataboutism, and fails to address Qt's problems.
> There's a lot of "If you're using Qt you're not using C++!!1" FUD to confuse newbies
I never saw that once, not do I understand why that is relevant.
Your own source mentions not only the correlation between income and SAT scores, but it also points out a link between quality of the education services provided to some communities and social pressure. It's also telling that the outliers are explained in a way that boils down to "they succeed in spite of everything we throw at them".
I never came across any of the sort.
What I come across frequently is the extension of the American exceptionalism mindset that leads some US natives to believe they are exceptional at math in spite of evidence failing to support their exceptionalism views.
> America is a society of disparate cultures, regions, communities, and outcomes (often in the same cities) that is far too (...)
I also see this all too often: the follow-up to the exceptionalism mindset failing to support their beliefs in a rational basis, and proceeding to cherry-pick subsets that suit their exceptionalism views.
It's like claiming that Americans are all tall athletic and exceptional basketball players, and supporting that exceptionalism view by pointing out that Michael Jordan and LeBron James are US citizens. Meanwhile, ignoring that the average us citizen might have more in common with Danny DeVito.
The US population is over 330M people, and its an unrivaled economic and technological powerhouse. Of course you can find hundreds of exceptional individuals. But being able to find a champion among the masses is not the point of a statement like "Americans are good at math". Baselines matter a lot, and even you admit that the US does not look great by attempting to cherry pick your way out of that.
This sounds like a non-issue, specially considering the pervasive use of "unsightly" installations like air ducts, heating vents, radiators, electrical sockets, telecommunication service panels, routers, and even light fixtures.
If you intentionally dismiss obvious solutions, of course you only end up with problems without obvious solutions.
> It's supposed to be dismissive, because this whole discussion is (...)
If you have nothing to add, please add nothing.