zaphar

There are really just two ways to avoid the inflationary spiral. You can either increase income (i.e. grow gdp) or you can decrease spending (i.e. cut entitlements).

This is as close as it can be to clearly explain. The problem is that most of our politicians are not explaining it and instead ignoring it. As an individual the only thing you can do is vote for candidates who are willing to have that hard conversation with the public. Unfortunately it looks like that would require voting for a third party candidate and a vanishingly small minority of the electorate is willing to do that. So given all of that context I'm not really sure that the term "Catastrophically indebted" is wrong.

I notice none of the octopi seem to be actually facing the organ.

That sucks and I'm sure it feels hopeless. But there are ways forward you can investigate. Look for a local community you can plug into. Ease into them and after some time you will be able to make the kind of connections you need.

My personal preference is a local church but there are other options out there. Club's around a shared interest you have. Community center events in your area. It's won't be quick and it won't be easy but you can reverse this.

The value of a feature or a bugfix is not calculated from the effort required but from the need or desire for said feature or bugfix. So whether or not the barrier to entry has been lowered by llm's is irrelevant. What matters as to it's value is the result.

This is completely missing the point. Structurally I don't believe either party is set up to allow truly quality candidates to succeed. They optimize for all the wrong things in their candidates. Candidates who are quality that get through tend to be exceptions. Picking the worst of either side is just furthering the "We can't vote for good candidates because they might lose to whoever we believe is the worst candidate on the other side" narrative. The only way out is to stop buying into that narrative in a large enough number.

At no point in this thread have I made a value judgement about Socialism. He got elected claiming to be a socialist which is fine. My point is that getting upset when someone says he's a socialist when he actually claims to be one is silly. It worked for him and he communicated to his electorate what he needed to. New York elected a socialist because they wanted one. They don't get to say "don't label him a socialist" after the fact.

This is impossible until a critical mass of voters across every state starts putting competence and integrity ahead of their pet issue and populism. If you actually want to start making headway in this direction you have to stop voting for candidates in either of the main parties. The parties are probably not salvageable. Find a third party candidate with these qualities and vote for them and convince as many people as you can to vote for them.

If we can't do that then we are just stuck as a body politic.

Not by me. By the rest of the world along with me.

Yeah, no. I am neither left or right these days and I see just as many attempts to coopt terms to have a different meaning from each side. My solve is to refuse to participate. If you want to communicate to me then you are going to have use the accepted definition not the definition you want me to believe instead. If you say you are a socialist then I will believe you. If you say you are a christian nationalist then I will believe you. I'm not interested in what your enemies want me to believe the term means. I'm only interested in the fact that you used it and it has real definition.

Any other road leads to madness and an absence of shared meaning. I will hold you to the standard of your own language and actions. Use the words correctly or be misunderstood. That's on you not me.

This line of thought bugs me. We use labels for a reason. Socialism has a well accepted definition and has for decades. We haven't modified it's meaning. I think it's fine to take someone at their word if they use a label. It's not on me to interrogate whether they mean something else when they use the label. It's on them to use the label correctly if they want to communicate. Especially if they are a politician where the entire job is to communicate and persuade.

To be fair Mamdani has stated that he is a "socialist" numerous times. So I don't think that the characterization is wrong necessarily.

I'm too lazy to investigate further but my guess is that if there is a vulnerability here it has something to do with dns name spoofing.

So they did not in fact build more, by any definition that a reasonable person would use.

What did they build more of then?

It is my understanding that they didn't in fact "Just build more" so how would they know it was or wasn't working?

This is a pretty well studied and researched area. It is in the research almost universally accepted that silence or white-noise is the most conducive environmental soundscape for introspective thought across all groups.

Introspection is the act of looking inward to examine your own thoughts, feelings, and motives. It is a personal process of self-reflection that helps you understand why you act and feel the way you do.

Pretty much everyone can benefit with some time for introspection. This is considerably easier to do if you have silence and boredom. Music, podcasts, television all hinder the practice of introspection. It takes practice though and that means being okay with silence and constantly keeping your mind on the task of examining your thoughts and feelings.

I think the poster was perhaps expressing that it doesn't look like enough people are comfortable with this process and seem to do anything they can to avoid it.

He was referencing a book that made that case if you "squint". If you read that as actually a serious "this caused world war 1" statement rather than. This looks to have gotten some dominoes rolling that may have contributed to WW1 then that says more about you than it does about the article itself.

That was not my understanding at all. She seemed to be making a much more nuanced point than the simplistic: "selfish actors deliberately dismantle..". I was more responding to the idea that she refuted hardin though which is very much not the case. She built on and expanded his thesis.

This is a statement of nearly pure faith not fact. Which is fine. I have a lot of things I believe based in pure faith. The difference is that I don't state them as if they were fact. Which you appear to be doing here.

I donate to this software because it's so much fun to play around with. My wife (of 30 years as of today) knows way more about music than I do and this is one way for me to connect a little bit with her hobby.

I think you might be thinking about Elinor Ostrom and she didn't show that his assumptions and claims were wrong exactly. She expanded on the work to clarify the difference between managed vs unmanaged commons. Showing that successful commons are managed in some way with established rules and limits around the usage. The term still has use especially if it is used to clarify the need for management of common resources to avoid the tragedy.

Comparing a languages syntax to a saw blade is a bad analogy. A saw is a complete tool. Syntax is more like the teeth on the saw blade. The quality of the saw is not just about the teeth. It's also about the size and spacing of those teeth, the strength of the blade those teeth are on, the shape of the saw blade itself, the hardness of the metal, as well as the shape of the handle.

If you are just building a table then hopefully you are not trying to do the whole thing with a keyhole saw.

Please do this. I would love to see this timeline actually hold true. Production quality is the bar though. Not something that only works in a very narrow set of circumstances with a ton of caveats.

The Oracle antipathy is less about the policy itself and more about the apparent hypocrisy of hyping and funding these tools as "solving programming" and then forbidding their use on their own open source project.

As far as I can tell that is indeed, "it". What is maybe more interesting is that it took this long to find data that shows it wrong given we have so many examples in history of it being in fact wrong.

This is sort of correct on webkits side. inheritance chains especially when you don't control who is inheriting from you are going to be very brittle. The standard would probably have been better if it had been specified as a form of composition instead. However not supporting something like this is largely worse than just doing the inheritance. I'm not sure this is a hill I would die on despite largely agreeing with the webkit folks here philosophically.

In the spec custom elements can inherit from any html element you wish. Which should allow you to only have to add the bits you need to add and let the rest be handled by the native implementation.

The one exception is Safari which has been slowly getting more and more special over time when it comes to web standards but is still relevent. If Safari found their way to supporting it then you shouldn't need to completely re-implement a button or combobox and instead just improve the native versions.

I do know quite a few people who use vim because they do enjoy the puzzle. So there are absolutely people as he describes. Saying that there aren't people like that just undermines your point.

The article was not against a tool but a way of thinking. He didn't say anywhere that Sublime was better than Vim. He did say that he disagrees with the idea that a tools friction is a feature.

I can take his entire thesis and use it to show that vim is the perfect editor for me precisely because vim is invisible to me when I use it. In part this is because I turned vim into the tool I wanted. He turned sublime into the tool he wanted. His basic point however still stands. If you are making something for someone else to use then making that tool invisible to them is a powerful property.