thwest

This is a good case for why MRAs are lumped in there. You're both myopic about a social dichotomy (men vs women or gifted rulers vs plebs), lack empathy for the other side of the dichotomy, and go through logical gymnastics to reach a conclusion that a power struggle must occur to benefit your side of the dichotomy. The internet is a great venue for this sort of dynamic.

Oh interesting. Thanks.

Actually the member can still be declared `private:` and the `obj.a.name` would not be portable. It appears GCC's implementation to make these members `public:` is conforming to c++11 but do not rely on this behavior.

I've been told in ##C++ that the current C++14 draft says: `An init-capture behaves as if it declares and explicitly captures a variable of the form “auto init-capture ;” whose declarative region is the lambda-expression’s compound-statement`

This change would make the named member access non-conforming

bool b = x < y;

Check out the code for the geordi bot that hangs out in freenode##c++. It uses some of the more advanced linux sandboxing features I've seen

For worse, surely. As a startup employee and HN reader, I'm disgusted with the amoral money chasing culture we've grown. The attitude towards politics here reminds me of a child plugging his ears, squinting hard and shouting "la la la la la I can't hear you". For all the talk of disruption, the domain of problems we are allowed to apply that to is horribly small.

You're making a deeply political claim here that individual morality should be secondary to business interests. Which unsurprisingly is a claim that will divide people. This attitude is a shining example of the consequences of the kind of liberalism that lets capitalism run amok, i.e. valuing individualism over any individual's actual values.

You seek to unite people, but for what purpose? I have yet to see business interests or _especially_ 'startup culture' tackle the real inequities and tragedies of our time. Startup culture is good at addressing the lifestyle issues of well off technophiles, not at preventing war, or justly distributing food or housing. (I am interested to see if Watsi can do anything better than Doctors Without Borders, or if it is just more focus on individuals rather than statistically significant outcomes). We ought to be looking for ways to transcend the limitations of business practices and reassert moral claims.

Note that people asking for Eich and Rice to get out of their lives aren't asking for government intervention or any formal rules set in place. If dropbox or mozilla want to lose their massive user base and keep profitable amoral corporate clients, that's fine, we'll leave them alone. If the economy eventually bifurcates and passionate progressive people replace large swaths of infrastructure with open, democratic organizations that seek to distance themselves from the corporate tradition I think it would be an enormous boon to the species.

Are we so adrift that we can't create a strong distinction between McCarthyism/Jewish persecution and asking our leaders to be cautious to war/pro-marriage? You actually see these positions as interchangeable and arbitrary? Should we simply abandon any moral or aesthetic position and let capitalism run its course?

Would there have been a campaign to run without donors?

I just hate NULL standing in for a boolean notion of existence, I'd rather see a separate boolean member indicating the validity of the other member (string middle_name; boolean has_middle_name;). Or in a strongly typed language an Option/Maybe type. Just assigning things NULL sometimes has the problem of people looking at the object and assuming everything will always be populated.

Why though? I'm of the opinion that the error should be handled at the place that produces the first NULL/None. Objects should be valid.

For me the problem is the argument formatting and dependency chasing for clang-osx and msvc/intelcc-windows

Big enough to move their highend bicycle manufacturing (Orbea) to China.

Clean, fast interface with nice keyboard shortcuts. No automated filtering besides basic spam detection, and creating sorting rules is straight forward.

> For example, I like static data structures, especially in C. But in C++ they are unidiomatic. How do you statically initialize (in the rdata / rodata segment) an object graph (even as simple as a tree) with zero-copying at runtime?

How do you do that in C? Does unidiomatic mean you can't do it? Interesting challenge.

That's also an interestingly-sized data structure. Apparently big enough that the initialization time is a performance concern, but small enough to be able to lay out statically and not burden your binary size.

A Fastmail account was the best technology purchase I made last year.

A significant private finance sector present in the 1920s in the US did nothing to prevent the great depression, where millions of people starved.

I use JSON and protobuf

There's no accounting for taste I suppose. I'll happily wade through a mountain of bad puns, but scatology and sexual dimorphism jokes are just wearisome.

It's for your job prospects that you avoid off color jokes? Not the comedic banality or actual disgust with sexism?

Does it matter if the operator was an employee of Tazreen Fashion, or self employed tailor? It was just a regular human in a regular fire.

Does it matter if the miner was an employee of International Coal Group, Inc, or if he was digging in his own backyard? It was just a regular human in a regular mine explosion.

The point of these counter examples is that accidents resulting from industrial activity are certainly morally tied to the corporation that is profiting off said activity. Uber is taking regular drivers, and putting them in a totally non-regular working environment. There are psychological effects to sitting in a drivers seat for hours and hours that regular commuters don't experience, yet Uber is not training their drivers for this.

Being responsible for the accidents your economic activity encourages is part of the bargain of Incorporation. To operate otherwise would encourage trading safety for profitability in the most extreme ways.

Is this a claim that your colleagues in construction are the same housing activists your OP is demonizing?

The bad behavior of techies isn't erased by the bad behavior of VCs. The bad behavior of VCs isn't erased by the bad behavior of Wall Street. The bad behavior of Wall Street isn't erased by genocidal and warmongering dictators. Let's not be so quick to shirk responsibility up the foodchain, when there are local immediate actions we can take to reduce our own bad behaviors.

(Of course yes, we should nationalize the abusive rentier FIRE industries, and use the incomes to fight inequality, but that's a relatively different topic).

The idea that people can work 50-60 hours a week to the benefit of some non-corporeal entity then sit on their ass the rest of the time is also a bit ridiculous. We should be active citizens in some manner, not labor commodities looping while(1) between office and apartment.

Bay Area Techies are easy to demonize because they willfully handwave away all the problems they cause. Get real: we are the foot soldiers of global capital. Investors from all over the world are looking to leverage the cachet of the Bay Area, and the real consequence is masses of evictions and neighborhoods being gutted to house more of us. Liberal myopia hides these consequences by focusing on individuals transacting with eachother. Treating techies as an economic class reveals the tensions. This is your "hard reality" of the real estate situation.

My advice is to realize and respect that we are using the dead labor of the globe to inflict our socially awkward outsideness upon those who would not have it. There is a real power imbalance between techie and non. We can either implement formal checks on this imbalance (e.g. shuttle buses become public transport), or we can ignorantly bumble along wielding Capital's power and push aside those we rely upon to make our neighborhoods vibrant and livable.

People there purchase commodities in great volume, surely.

For me the difference between economic and ecological self-sufficiency is that the economic system is a societal output and is malleable to a greater degree than the ecological.

Overpopulation can also result from simple trade. NYC and generally the entire US eastern seaboard are overpopulated by your definition.

Asking for a better level of explanation is not at all similar to staking out room for an extra-material homunculus type consciousness. "Put enough protons, neutrons and electrons together, and bam, bread" is a poor explanation of baking, but not so poor as to warrant skepticism on which fundamental particles we are eating.

Nagel has an almost myopic view of the 'experience' in my estimation. His classic claim that a human could never experience bat flight starts by pondering about the possible structure of bat consciousness, and is in the end justified by the physiological differences. Yet somehow he mysticizes the impossibility of experience transfer. As for your grandpost about experience, perhaps you are conflating the experience with the description (thought experiment: have you ever been able to isolate the feeling of an electrical signal in your brain?).

I have a similar background to yours, and for a while I was kind of stuck in a Nagel-Dennett-Russell sort of place that felt like it was probably correct but lacked any sort of richness that living through consciousness provides. My recommendation is to dive into the rabbit hole of continental philosophy. Deleuze has a great radical materialism (inspired by Spinoza?!), and wonderfully blurs psychology and philosophy in A Thousand Plateaus. Heidegger has an exploration of the experience of language being the bootstrapping tool of consciousness in Being and Time. And some psilocybin never hurt.

You are getting downvotes because you didn't follow Bayesian reasoning, but there is some justification for your instincts here http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/ph...

> That's a bunch of needlessly cynical and completely ignorant bullshit. [...] It isn't something that's done at the point of a gun.

Alan Greenspan is of the opinion that our Iraq wars were 'largely about oil' and economic stability. The point is debatable, but certainly not completely ignorant bullshit.

I think you are pretending that previous regimes were comically totalitarian, rather than meeting any realistic definition of the word. Even state sponsored Soviet art projects ended up funding pieces that had anti-Stalin and anti-state parodies in them. Even the Nazi party had internal tensions.

Speaking as an America, it's exactly this kind of pithy dismissal from the psuedo-intellectual class that gives our regime a pass. The vast swath of American political discussion is limited to the purview of cable news, and in these few bastions of informed discussion when real political problems of our country are discussed there's always this contingent of people who aggressively don't care and find offense in others caring.

Your post is somewhat amazing in that respect, especially the emphasis on "pretending" as the separation from reality that makes you comfortable with this conversation. There's nothing so uniquely unrighteous about America that it can't fall into the same power struggles that all empires throughout history have. If the citizenry is going to prevent that we need to be able to discuss it without resorting to pretending.