throwaway19972

Previous generations also had it easy. Generally speaking technological advancement isn't blocked by motivation but by other concerns, namely funding.

Personally, I'd rather fix healthcare if we're going to spend political capital. https://youtu.be/goh2x_G0ct4 remains as relevant as ever

> every publicly-owned company currently does

Let me introduce you to a concept called “dividends”

Frankly, I’d love it if we made private enterprise illegal.

To be clear, the camps never went away, and we’ve been mass deporting for decades now. Support of ICE is a bipartisan effort. Iirc the only change Biden made was to end the policy of family separations. The rhetoric is massively different, but the actual policy is not.

I really wouldn’t hold my breath for a president that doesn’t fearmonger about immigration in the forseeable future.

> Companies shouldn't be able to reinvest money into themselves because every extra dollar needs to go to employees

This wouldn't be called "profit", now would it?

Regardless, letting the market dictate as much as it does also doesn't make sense. Neither does trusting investors/shareholders to determine what's best for society. It's all just kind of broken.

> So the employee should be able to benefit from allocating the company's spending to their card's swipe fees (where said rewards come from), but it's wrong when the company itself wants to benefit from the swipe fees on their own transactions (via discounted expense software)?

Yes, absolutely. There isn't a single profitable corporation on earth that has employees that don't deserve to be compensated more.

> I think you may be right that there's room for nuance about obesity, especially moralization about it, but you simply cannot deny that it's a huge problem in the US

Of course not. I just don't like how most conversations about health get subsumed into the much less productive conversation about how destructive obesity is.

Sure, but none of us know what the impact this drug will have on a societal level yet. Saying we've "fixed" anything is ridiculous.

> We have been heavily pushed to drive less, recycle more, and use less water, but I have not seen messaging about not buying new clothes you don't need.

It's there if you follow the right people on social media.

Campaigns that center around personal responsibility, however, aren't ever going to work, and there's obvious reasons why people are willing to pay to push this narrative but not the buying fewer clothes one (at least here in the US).

I don't think this is true at all. Peoples' obsession with solving obesity as a cure-all for human health deserves pushback. There's also a concerning degree of moralizing it that has no place in our culture but has taken firm root.

It's a pretty dangerous mindset to imagine you're "fixing" a problem rather than "treating" a symptom.

I realize obesity is a major problem, but so is neuroticism about health, weight, and diet. I agree with the nagging feeling that using a drug to address hunger is likely to have negative consequences for some people.

EDIT: obsession -> neuroticism

I mean, I think pretty strongly it was made in china now. I certainly have more certainty about that than, say, the origins of the shroud of turin.

> I thought the whole reason for the shortages the last few years was due to commercial applications buying out most of the Pi's available?

Sure, but that's not why people find raspberry pis interesting or valuable.

Roman writers used "umbra" or "shadow"/"shade" as a word for specters, phantoms, ghosts, etc. They had many other words, too, but this is probably closest to how dead apparitions were physically perceived.

> It doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement.

You don't find many of these when looking at the past, and if you do, this should be a giant, glaring red flag. I may not be a trained art historian but I do know my historiography very well.

While there is some commercial/industrial use of RPi, that seems like an odd consideration when generally considering how they've positioned the brand. Meanwhile you can write and run very similar code across everything from the zero all the way up to the 5—which is enormous flexibility that x86 simply doesn't offer.

Plus, my understanding is that the N100 still tends to have poor driver support issues that the Pi likely doesn't with such a large community.

> Which the metal came from China but the origin of the artwork seems unclear.

Even wildly famous western artwork often has unknown provenance, or only vaguely-known provenance. Furthermore art historians often see identifying details, stylizations, flaws, etc that laymen (like myself) don't. I'm happy to trust the reporting here as much as I'd trust anything from a field I don't know much about (what alternative is there, really?).

> Once they add that in, then they're just going to have late-released, poorly made software that happens to have an LLM in it somewhere.

Hell, you can even predict where by looking at the lowest-paid people in the organization. Work that isn't valued today won't start being valued tomorrow.

> They are simply following the market.

So is global warming. This excuse rang hollow 30 years ago and it still rings hollow today.

I can't speak to SQLAlchemy itself, but ActiveRecord (which I'm sure has both shared and unshared issues) still imposes a high maintenance burden with a small team of highly-skilled developers, both on the performance front and the validating-changes front. I, personally, find it very annoying to read, having to hop around an object hierarchy just to figure out what kind of query is generated and what kind of logic is "silently" added to the query somewhere in said object hierarchy (or, god forbid, mixins/monkey-patching).

You definitely make good points, and all my issues are over-comable with time and effort and knowing which tricks to use, so this truly is a matter of opinion and taste. I'm just pointing out that the idea that this produces more readable code seems far from obvious.

Definitely an argument worth making! It's hard to imagine that discovery of cheap iron production and the trade of tin aren't related (though, of course, it was in high demand all the way through until the modern age for other uses than weaponry).

I can't imagine the recent tariffs have helped much, either. Less competition and pricier parts is a bad combination for consumers.

> Honestly I don't know why there are so many almost identical IDEs.

Probably a reflection of internal organization to avoid product teams stepping on each others' toes.

> 15 years building up massive apps with Django and SQLAlchemy and this has never been a problem.

I guarantee you it is if the reader isn't already intimately familiar with SQLAlchemy.

I'd imagine you'd get higher quality leveraging accessibility integrations.

Iron was a thing before the iron age, too. We just didn't have a cheap or scalable way to produce viable ore.

Access to cheap iron definitely is widely accepted an aspect of the bronze to iron age shift (well, obviously, but rather rejecting the idea that iron is "superior" to bronze in any way other than cheap access to iron even when the economic implications are so clearly visible in the archaeological record), but it's important to remember that virtually all aspects of life changed for people in the mediterranean around this time. It's very difficult to summarize the shifts as even potentially attributable to a single cause (like much of materialist history!).

Cause and effect are very difficult to differentiate, and combined with the fact that this a) produced a profound cultural change in the region (e.g. the rise of Judaism, the writing of the Iliad, the language shifts that occurred over the ensuing centuries) and b) distinguishing migrations from invasions from cultural trends in the archaeological record is nearly impossible, I highly recommend against such reductive narratives. Other possibly confounding variables include the spread of horse technology, trade technology (i.e. writing), climate and agricultural pressures, etc.

> Moving fast is often crucial, but you typically also get more readable code, which is also worth it.

I think the exact opposite is true, actually—because of the introduction of stuff like lifecycle hooks it becomes very difficult to figure out how the domain semantics translate to query/execution semantics. Of course some are lighter than that and just e.g. map a table to a domain type (which is much more readable), but that's not typically what catches criticism.

> There's something fundamentally broken with SQL syntax

? Are you referring to something specific?

> because what is valuable is NOT "Do I see a type mismatch error only when a user accesses it?", it's "does this mismatch prevent a deployment?"

I argue that understanding the semantics clearly and unambiguously is the most relevant thing, and strong typing tends to do that better (imho—with my only other examples being javascript and the "stringly-typed" perl and some random irrelevant BASIC dialects).

> Weak (but present) static typing beats strong dynamic typing every single time,

Can you give me an example? I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing. The closest I can think to this is maybe, arguably, the use of `void*` pointers in C which is difficult to see as anything other than pragmatism rather than some deeply beneficial way to write code—even explicit casts produce much more readable code. Another argument I could see is for operator overloading, which (IMO) produces much less readable code, or the implicit conversions feature of Scala (which also, IMO, produces less readable code, but they've addressed a lot of the major problems with it).