Adding something is always gonna make things worse by default and has to be proven to be useful. Otherwise you have bloat and "yet another way of doing the one thing".
I'm a fan of this notation because it's consistent but language design should not just add features because it doesn't hurt.
I enjoy language features like this too. In fact, I love how languages like C# have handled nullability over the more recent years. No telling how many bugs I have prevented.
The only gripe I have though, is that I have to be remember which version does and does not support such syntax changes. It's not a major issue by any means, but when dealing with legacy applications, I tend to often forget what is and is not syntactically allowed.
You don't have to be condescending, even if you disagree or think the situation is more nuanced. I think it's important that we're able to disagree in a polite manner.
Do they "hijack" every debate, though? I understand that highlighting genocide support makes people uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean that it's not allowed to be mentioned. I don't think the original comment was totally off-topic.
You cannot mention genocide and not drown every other topic. It's naturally grim shit. Here it's drowning someone else's moment of joy. A fight won for democracy and freedom. TODAY, this person was proud of their country. It's already implied, this isn't every day.
The genocide happening is a terrible thing, but for most people here there is nothing actionable about it beyond voting and protesting. It's an important issue, but there is no reason for it to be the only issue on people's mind at all times. People dying in Palestine does not mean, people with no stakes or say in the matter need to be constantly consumed by its horror. There are many similar conflicts going right now, btw.
Climate change, social justice, digital freedom, queer liberation, ... it's all getting overshadowed by the Palestine issue. If you care about anything, someone wants you to care about Palestine in that moment. And quite frankly, a lot of these advocates are not even informed beyond their Instagram information warfare bubble.
This habit of injecting the topic into other political movements, effectively kills those other movements.
If you'd join any Palestine protest community you'd see that's not true.
Mobilisation for every issue is increasing everywhere, and there is strong solidarity across movements. Because the genocide support is radicalising an entire generation who then join the other movements as well.
I'm very interested to hear if you have personal experience to the contrary. However if you are not involved in anything, then you have no right to criticise those who are.
I also want to note that the genocide is only possible because of our silence on the matter.
> I'm very interested to hear if you have personal experience to the contrary. However if you are not involved in anything, then you have no right to criticise those who are.
I do. Am I allowed to speak now? There is no wide solidarity in both directions. If the Palestine block joins a queer demonstration and uses dog-whistles like paraglider symbolism in their communication, the messaging surely isn't solidarity with queer people. And soon thereafter, all you will see is Palestine flags, hear "Palestine 43" until the demonstration gets dissolved because someone says something wildly antisemitic, gets removed by the police, which causes riot. But hey, queer life got no reason to have their voices heard these days. Somebody may get a whole lot less free, until everyone is free, I guess.
But in any case, how fucking dare you, I have every right to criticize whatever I want. You don't know anything about the person you casually guilt-tripped above, maybe you should take that into consideration when talking speech rules.
So, what level of evidence would it take, to change your mind? You see, I won't spend any more time on this, if you are going to deflect any evidence provided. There is public record for the things I stated above. Would this make you concede here? Failure to bring forth an argument after provided with evidence, eg. not replying at all, will be considered concession.
Oh, and the scope is the genocide happening right now, not the fight for "Palestinian liberation", if this includes the dissolution of the state of Israel. "Palestine 43" and similar doesn't fly in Germany. And any celebration of the October attacks, in particular the festival massacre is considered antisemitic and glorification of illegitimate violence in nature. The paraglider is a symbol of this attack. Deal?
Also, if you mean that protests get surpressed by police because the Palestine issue gets raised there, please direct your anger at the state not fellow activists. This is how they divide us.
Well, I've been there. I've seen/heard why someone would have been detained. Although, of course, it didn't happen right next to me, but there were plenty of slogans and shouts completely unrelated to the current genocide, calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel.
See, I don't want to justify the police action. They are assholes. But, for "solidarity" with queer causes, I'd expect people maybe not to push every button, so they can paint themselves as the suppressed of the suppressed, effectively making queer voices unheard.
In my opinion it is relevant to "being proud" of the German state, which I'm personally unable to do because of the genocide support. I stated nothing more.
I would argue that a public transportation network is a requirement, maybe even a prerequisite, for high density. Manhattan simply could not work without the various public transportation methods -- if everyone commuting in from CT, LI, NJ, upstate NY, etc., had to drive in, would there even be enough space for all those cars on the island?
Yeah it's always quite naïve to say technology will be always exponential. We only had like a few thousand years - if it's logarithmic we wouldn't know it for the next 10000 years.
In practice they will not just do open source and people will exploit them for free work since there are significant barriers to access employers able to pay market rate. Even open source itself can potentially be exploitative due to being free work.
While open source may be okay for coding, there are other skills which may not be so easy to do from your own home. In practice they will not just do open source and people will exploit them for free work
If you had google maps and you knew the directions it gives are 80% gonna be correct, would you still need navigation skills?
You could also tweak it by going like "Lead me to the US" -> "Lead me to the state of New York" -> "Lead me to New York City" -> "Lead me to Manhattan" -> "Lead me to the museum of new arts" and it would give you 86% accurate directions, would you still need to be able to navigate?
How about when you go over roads that are very frequently used you push to 92% accuracy, would you still need to be able to navigate?
Yes of course because in 1/10 trips you'd get fucking lost.
My point is: unless you get to that 99% mark, you still need the underlying skill and the abstraction is only a helper and always has to be checked by someone who has that underlying skill.
I don't see LLMs as that 99% solution in the next years to come.
Americans (and other Westerners and developed countries) emit carbon to drive SUVs and eat burgers and steak. They tell everyone else to stay poor lest they emit carbon. Then also shame them for needing aid.
I'm glad China's at least making something useful with their emissions.
Per capita is relevant because while nature only cares about the total, it is people doing the emissions.
If everyone could emit each year as much as they wanted the total would go over whatever cap we need to keep it under to prevent catastrophic warming and sea level rise. Since only the total matters to nature then every ton of CO2 one person emits anywhere in the world has exactly the same impact as every ton of CO2 any other person emits anywhere else in the world.
In effect whatever cap we decide on for annual emissions act like a finite consumable for the year that is shared by everyone on Earth.
Unless you can come up with a good argument why some people should have a right to bigger share of that consumable than others, each person should get the total annual emission cap divided by the population Earth. Let's call this amount 1 share.
A government is doing its fair share to address climate change if it can get the emissions of the people under its jurisdiction down to 1 share per person.
Since nature doesn't care where emissions come it is OK if some people use more more than 1 share as long as others use less to balance it. A government just needs to get the average from the people under its jurisdiction down to 1 share per person.
Fix it early so the user does not have to deal with the complexity is most often the best approach.
reply