Re: Now ask me why ...
I also lived in the middle east, where my best friend was welsh. Trying to talk to him via cell phone was pointless.
702 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Aug 2020
Yes, let's all remember that the Americans won the space race by spending vast amounts of government money on a centrally-managed project. Thus, the superiority of capitalism over communism was demonstrated.
(Yes, of course huge amounts of the work were done by private industry. I doubt the Americans would have won the space race if they had left it entirely to the free market, even with a very large government incentive on the table for the winners. It's almost like maintaining a healthy balance of private industry and high-level economic management is the most reliable way to achieve economic goals)
The premise of all MLMs.
I had a friend who got into Arbonne. She invited us over and gave us the whole spiel (all a bunch of male nerds, so I don't know why she thought it would get anywhere). None of us said anything. It is one of my life-long regrets that I didn't overcome my politeness and point out what a scam it was (especially right in front of her handler, that would have been great). That said, her boyfriend really should have stepped up to the plate on that one.
While I acknowledge that this is not super strong (the art market is also in many ways a similar scam), there is one difference which I think is important. Sometimes, somebody buys an expensive painting not JUST as an investment vehicle, but also because they want to show it off to their rich friends (or even rarer, because they actually like it or appreciate its historical significance). That works a lot better when you get a physical thing over which you can claim exclusivity.
So while 99% of the time these things are bought as expensive gambling, there is some actual market value outside of the painting's use as an investment vehicle. That means the art market has at least some semblance of an economic foundation, which the NFT market does not.
Funny, we watched an episode of Mayday (Air Crash Investigation) last night where precisely such a thing happened, at the CORPORATE level. A French carrier wanted their pilots to fly as fast as possible; IIRC they had a standard of 350 KM/H when below 5000 feet, as opposed to 250 KM/H for standard flights (something like that anyway). They found that the terrain warning alarms went off too often in this configuration, so they began ordering aircraft without terrain warning systems.
Surprise, they had a plane crash into a mountain.
If by "muddy the waters" you mean "try to understand a complex issue through a variety of lenses".
I believe that the primary result of deplatforming people is to turn them into martyrs. "'They' didn't want me to say this, as evidenced by the fact that they literally shut me down". I am fully aware that letting people say whatever bullshit they want will have real-world consequences, but unfortunately the world is not a shiny happy place and I believe that the benefits of a general policy of free speech outweigh the negatives.
Our big problem right now is a lack of compromise, understanding, and mutual respect in public discourse. Telling people to shut up does nothing to promote any of those values. It only makes the people being deplatformed more angry, which helps nobody.
I'd also observe that the people who are being deplatformed are literally on the verge of starting a civil war (and pulling people off Twitter has done nothing to quell this). When that happens, ignoring them is not going to be an option. So you can either try to find common ground as a starting point for discourse now, or deal with THAT consequence later.
II don't think Elon particularly represents the left or the right. It only looks like he is right-wing because it is the MAGAs who have been most agressively de-platformed, and he has been fairly consistent about being opposed to de-platforming.
For a whole bunch of reasons, I also think that it is a mistake to silence people who believe things that I would deem "insane". That doesn't mean I in any way support those ideas, it just means I don't think I anybody should have the authority to unilaterally deem them unfit for human consumption.
I'm concerned about the same thing. Never mind this specific instance, such a council must have mutual respect and the ability to step outside themselves. You can't just throw Alex Jones and Dejywan Floyd in a room and expect anything useful to happen.
That said, such people do exist and I believe such a council can be created. In fact, I'd say that setting these things up usually isn't that hard...it's keeping them going that is difficult, as the members and their priorities change.
^subtle microcausm alert ^
I once wrote a procedure that required my coworkers to add something to PATH. Unfortunately I linked to instructions that were not as clear as they could have been, and somebody instead deleted PATH. Fortunately our machines were configured very similarly, so I had him use mine.
In my defense, my coworker had been documenting Windows software for 30 years, so I didn't really think this would be needed at all.
If you are the sort of person who will spend over a grand on a GPU, does it seem likely that you will tolerate network latency and video compression? I'm also not sure about the environmental benefits, since now you have to run servers which we all know are so good for the environment. Even if you leave your PC on 24/7 (which people are not obliged to do), how many watts does an idle GPU draw above a machine with integrated graphics?
And do you think that you switching to Rust will fix the bug in a library you wish to consume? Because I daresay whoever wrote that library would rather just fix the bug than completely re-write it in Rust.
I also have recently had to deal with a read-access violation in a GPU driver for a 10-year-old GPU. If you use a library that has a bug, there is nothing you can do except work around it. That will never change.
Exactly. I cannot remember the last time my C++ code had a GPF or more subtle memory access bug. We've had RAII for a long time now, it works very well and is easy to learn. You can turn pretty much any concept that should have a limited lifespan into an object by writing a simple RAII wrapper, and it will happen automatically when the stack unwinds...even if there is an exception.
I am growing weary of The Register pushing political opinions on Rust vs C and C++.
I think the mission of teaching women and visible minorities to take on engineering roles is admirable, and it sounds like this group is being effective towards that end. HOWEVER, I wanted to call out the quote in my title as being dangerous.
So long as people are raised with a general sense of empowerment, they certainly can "be what they cannot see". If there is a group of people that does not feel they are able to determine their own aspirations, then it's important to target that lack of confidence directly; don't tell them it's normal, and that they should still be limited by the roles that society has shown them to be acceptable.
I agree that white color crime needs to be treated more seriously, but (assuming his statements are truthful) I don't think this is the place to do it. Circumstances are generally taken into account when determining sentencing, including to people who commit robbery. Mercy IS (and should be) a part of the criminal justice system. If somebody does something stupid, for a stupid reason, and ultimately no harm comes of it...how does society benefit from imposing a punitive punishment. Some punishment of course, but what would be the value of ruining this person's life any more than it already has been?
Showing mercy makes it all the more meaningful when you really bring the hammer down.
(of course he could also be full of shit, I don't know)