thomasfoster96

> mwfunk 2 minutes ago

If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible.

Thanks for saying that - that's one reason why I struggle to take this article seriously.

If loading a small text page is a hassle... I'm not sure what millennium your connection is in.

If you understand the problem - that a dynamically typed, interpreted language has performance issues that prevent it being useful in computationally intensive scenarios, but can't be replaced easily - then this solution is actually quite reasonable.

Well yes, he has a mandate to try. But if it all goes badly, he'll get the blame - and there's a good chance it'll go badly because Leave set some pretty lofty goals.

But I'm sure he would have liked another three or four years.

Yes, in the UK the parliament has absolute sovereignty[0].

Parliament cannot be overruled by the courts (unlike the US or Australia, where the Supreme/High Court can declare laws invalid), nor is there any requirement for decisions to be taken to a referendum (unlike Australia or Switzerland, where the constitution can't be changed without a vote).

The UK parliament can, in theory, ignore the referendum entirely - although that'd be hugely unpopular if they did.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

52% of voters from all parties were behind his side. 52% of people voting for a brexit doesn't translate into 52% of the seats in the House of Commons going to a Johnson-led Conservative party.

Edit: And it certainly doesn't translate into 52% of people wanting him to win in 2020. If he negotiates a poor deal with the EU and/or 'forgets' about a few central 'Leave' arguments, he'll be in all sorts of trouble.

> There's a classical liberal case for Brexit, though, which Gove articulated reasonably well.

I don't know that much about Gove's position, but from what I can tell it has little to do with classical liberalism and a lot more to do with nationalism. The classical liberal case was that the EU is a fundamentally broken organisation and it is beyond reform.

> The media is really playing up this angle. Vote Leave isn't the government and the referendum wasn't a general election where the campaigners campaign on a particular manifesto. There is now more money in the UK budget, where it gets spent is up to the next PM.

But voters treated it as such. It's pretty clear that a sizeable number of voters - probably not enough to change result vote but still perhaps 5% - were registering an anti-government vote. While the next PM might have more money, there will be a major backlash if it doesn't get used to replace EU funding, and the decisions about funding will now be debated in London, not Brussels.

You can analyse faces all you want, but whoever the next Prime Minister is, they have a tough job that will probably end with them being walloped in a general election or being toppled by their own party. Boris Johnson is just in an even worse position because he was seen as the leader-in-waiting and he actively campaigned for the policy that made everything so complicated.

Well that pretty much nails it.

While on paper it still looks like Boris Johnson is in a great position to the vast majority of the public, the next Prime Minister is going to have to follow through with what they know is a terrible idea, negotiate with the EU with remarkably less leverage than the 'Leave' campaign thought they had, try to deal with Scotland wanting to leave, restless regional pressure groups in Wales, Cornwall and other parts of the country, as well as try not to have Northern Ireland fall back into a state of ongoing political violence.

So Johnson either has put his hand up to deal with all these issues until the next general election in (or sooner) 2020 and go to an election with a struggling economy (I doubt and the Union slowly falling apart (remember, Scotland's independence would topple the sitting PM almost certainly) or he can wait it out, let another Conservative Prime Minister lose in 2020, and become party leader upon the election loss and hope to win in 2025.

I doubt he thought this through very well. On the plus side UKIP's work is mostly done so they mightn't poll as well any more.

But US States can't leave the union (although they can change the constitution).

Britain has always had 'pure sovereignty'. With or without the EU, their parliament can do pretty much anything it wants (the US or Australian legislatures are quite limited), including leaving the EU.

Re: Austerity/neoliberalism, that's got very little to do with the EU and a lot to with Thatcher being elected in 1979, with the only non-Conservative government since then being Tony Blair - who wasn't exactly economically left wing.

> So he resigns, but he was elected as a representative in the lower house. That means he won't be PM anymore, and he goes back to being a member of the lower house?

Yep.

> Does the house pick one of its own members for the job, or does the majority party get to pick anybody at all that they want to be PM?

In most countries (the UK included) the majority party will pick one of their MPs. Australia once had a PM die in office (Harold Holt) and have a person in the Senate picked as the replacement, so the replacement ran in the byelection for the previous PM's seat.

> Do PMs that leave go back to being house members? Seems like that would be kinda weird.

Yeah, but they've also been house members the whole time they were PM, so it's not that wierd.

Prime Ministers in countries that have them are usually the leader of the largest party in the lower house of their Parliament. David Cameron doesn't have to resign immediately, because he's still the leader of the largest party.

He's resigning (or rather has announced he will resign before October) because he had certainly given the impression to his party that if 'Remain' didn't win, he'd resign. He could try and stay on, but the party might get rid of him and vote to make someone else leader (therefore forcing him to resign as Prime Minister).

Actually I think this may be a rare correct usage of the term.

I'm on Windows 10.

Images (as well as tables) are kinda a bit of a must for me. I don't find Wiki markup to have much overhead in practice.

I used to use OneNote a lot (partly because my high school used it a lot). It was alright, but the free version on the Windows Store is horrible and I don't have enough use for it to pay for the full version.

I've tried using the notes app on my iPhone but it's just not quick enough to write things down in - although that might be because I have a 5s with a smaller screen than newer phones. I've used it when I have been without a pen a couple of times, but other than that I have very little use for it.

I think I used Evernote once and it just seemed like an early-2000s version of one note.

Ideally what I want is MediaWiki in a .exe or .app. Most other wiki programs seem to be inferior to OneNote for me, but I'd love to have my own offline Wikipedia of my life and projects.

I think they may have been referring to the names right down at the bottom - a minifier wouldn't use "NWvQtGjjfQX" without having used all the two, three four or five letter variable names.

> Yes, written English isn't a phonetic language like, say, Hindi.

It is still somewhat phonetic. If you ignore the vowels that have changed sound over time and the silent letters, you can still sound out a fair chunk of English words.

> In fact I think the trend to teach kids English via "phonics" makes spelling harder; comment back if you want to discuss further.

It took me a long time to realise the point of learning 'phonics' at school (they were called phonograms in Australia).

While I can see why writing and reading without speaking makes phonics look useless, for children, all of their language is initially communicated through sound. Putting a bunch of symbols in front of them and saying that it has meaning isn't going to help them - but showing that the symbols roughly correspond to sounds that they already know have meaning is a pretty important step.

This doesn't apply to all written languages - logographic systems obviously don't have a correspondence between sounds and written symbols - but for alphabetic systems and the like it's quite a good system.

Of course, English uses 26 letter to represent 44 or so sounds, so as far as learning to read and write via phonics goes, English is one of the worst examples there is.

I suppose deleting the phone app, App Store and settings doesn't make much sense.

Didn't Apple just announce that they'll be allowing users to delete pre-installed apps come iOS 10?

YouTube's unlisted videos to name one.

I would say it's quite different to sharing a password as text in Facebook chat - the URL is certainly in your browser history as well as any other place that has logged your GET request.

Google Docs maybe - but not every service that uses a similar mechanism.

This probably isn't a popular opinion, but I fail to see how this is a problem with Facebook.

The Google Docs URL is public whether or not you send it through Facebook. It's only secret until someone guesses the link (Edit: maybe not mathematically in the case of Google Docs, but many other services use 'unlisted' URLs without having a long token to guess) - something they can do without the URL even going through Messenger.

If you're sharing passwords or confidential information via a public URL with no authentication and hoping nobody finds the address, you're asking for trouble. I don't blame Facebook for not doing anything about it.

"Anergy"[0], in case you weren't asking a rhetorical question.

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anergy#English

I'm inclined towards thinking that it might be a joke.

For those wondering what the "severe weather" was:

* http://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-wild-weather-sydne...

* http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-07/sydney-weather-storm-d...

* http://www.sbs.com.au/news/gallery/pictures-wild-weather-sav...

What makes you think 'nest' and 'collection of eggs' are synonyms? True, it's common for a collection of eggs to be found in a nest, but they don't mean the same thing.