The difference between California, Texas, South Dakota, Maine, Ohio are as different as Turkey, France, Australia, Ireland, Japan... It's a really foolish opinion or disregard the immense diversity of 350,000,000 people, and (unfortunately) it's made all over the internet.
"Why don't you just do X", totally papers over the extent of what just needs to happen.
"Everyone should just do Y" is always bad policy. Just look at what happened with something as simple as wearing masks.
>The difference between California, Texas, South Dakota, Maine, Ohio are as different as Turkey, France, Australia, Ireland, Japan
This is just so obviously not true on the surface. We all speak the same language at the very least, which isn't true for a single one of those countries you listed.
Each government in the world is for the most part presented with the same set of puzzles. Then they spend good money trying to solve it in isolation as if they are all unique and special.
Some countries are just 1000 years behind in some areas, or 1000 years ahead. The US is no exception in both.
I am aware that the US is not one monolithic block. To assume otherwise is a very US-thing to do. The rest of the world literally drowns in news about the US internal conflicts.
But maybe I sould give an example: guns. I grew up in an European region where the percentage of gun owners is close to US levels, yet our last school rampage was a decade ago. The rural town I grew up in is famous for it's traditional gunsmiths and home of a Glock factory, so not what some in the US would call big city liberals.
The reason gun crime is low here is because we have commons sense gun laws of the type most gun owners in the US supporr as well. Yet you have US politicians claiming "it is a slippery slope" and it "can't possibly work".
Yeah, look at the numbers, it works, it also works in comparable regions to mine with totally different social and cultural circumstances. Of course if you'd like to you could also implement it in a way so it doesn't work, but that would be evil on a comic book villain level right?
The problem in the US is that corporations are really damn effective there to trick a sizable amount of the population into believing all kind of excuses that fall apart the second you look elsewhere.
E.g. given our gun laws many US citizens would say our freedom has been taken away, yet somehow 10 year old me managed to go shooting on empty cans with my hunter grandfather. We had a god damn shooting range in the cellar of our school. It is just that our guns are stored safely and people who shouldn't have guns don't have them. E.g. because they issue threats, have a history of violence, drug abuse, mental illness, or showed otherwise that they act irresponsible with the lives of their neighbours.
But maybe you know more about why the world I live in can't work and have a good explaination that for some reason keeps benefiting certain corporations, while it kills the kids of your population.
Spoken by a cretin disqualified by their own disability to add substantial points to a debate.
Pro-Tip: If you aim to critique the points someone made, a sure way to come across like a total fool is to call the person names instead of saying anything useful. This is one of the things that says more about you than the person you attacked ; )
Yeah, the TikTok ban isn't about restricting content for US users, it's about restricting the data vacuum that is the PRC. TikTok has already been banned for Govmnt employees for years. And, for good reason.
Sometimes, we have to remind ourselves that our government is not the bad guy. The bad guys are the bad guys; and those bad guys aren't often bad to their own kind.
It's pretty obvious the tiktok ban was due to the Israel-Palestine conflict and thus is about restricting US users. It literally got passed in the same bill as Israel funding too.
I actually hadn't heard this theory until I read it on Wikipedia about an hour before your reply. I don't think the "same bill as Israel funding" is enough to make this obvious without other context, though: after all, that same bill includes military funding for Taiwan and Ukraine, too, and combining them was largely a parliamentary tactic to make it harder for legislators to oppose portions of the combined bill, not an acknowledgement that they all dealt with exactly the same subject.
(You might still be right, I just don't think it's "pretty obvious".)
Same bill as Israel funding is not my argument, it's just something to note. If you dig into this, you will find lots of public statements or comments made by ADL and related organizations about tiktok's influence on gen z opinions of the conflict, since tiktok doesn't ban pro palestine content or videos of civilian killings by IDF like all of the other big social networks do. Couple of weeks later, the ban is introduced and few weeks later the bill is passed. This is as pretty obvious as it can possibly be.
No. The Tiktok ban is because the PRC is using it to track US (and other country's') citizens. This is fundamentally no different than what Facebook has been doing for years, but China doesn't have a free market, so every piece of data is available to the PRC intelligence.
This should not be a surprise, but you folks are idiots who think only The Big Bad United States are (somehow) the only ones interested in spying.
I remember when Facebook released an "OS" for the phone (it was really just a skin for Android). While I'm really happy to see that FB is making another stab into the field with the Quest, and I'm very happy that we're finally getting some real development in VR, I'm even more skeptical of them now as I was then: I just don't trust FB with my data.
Part of what makes me so skeptical is how "cheap" the Quest 3 is. There's no way they're not loosing [literally billions](https://fortune.com/2023/10/27/mark-zuckerberg-net-worth-met...) of dollars developing VR tech and, given their track record, only have one way they know to make that money back.
While The White House (and actual Rust and Go enjoyers) are advocating for these safe memory-safe languages; what is really going on is that the warts these languages have are just not as well known yet. In a few years time Go will be just as hated as C++, and there'll be some new darling programming language that'll "solve all out problems".
To be fair, I do look forward to when logic programming languages get their time in The Sun.
We can't go from X% error rate to 0% error rate, sadly, even though we want to.
But if we can go to (X/2)% error rate then that's still a win.
I wouldn't mind if we replace Golang and Rust in 10-ish years or so. For now they are definitely doing better than C++, especially having in mind that the old guard is gradually retiring and the newer generation are not as good with it.
You seem disappointed that we haven't found the one true universal language yet. I am as well, but no need to trash-talk the current iterative improvements. Apparently that's how we'll get to that ultimate thing.
Same - DOT is a great way to go from zero to functional in near minimal time. It's also pretty trivial to generate since it's not order dependent, which is great for lightweight automation.
Fine-tuning layout can be a real hassle though, sadly. I haven't found any quick tools for that yet.
The way I approach fine-tuning DOT layout is to add subgroups where it seems appropriate, add a 1px border for the subgroup and see where the layout engine is situating it next to other nearby vertices/edges. Sometimes I may have to put a border around a few subgroups, then attempt to adjust size of vertices and entire area to nudge it to a local minima. Note: I don't attempt to adjust the size of the subgroups, I'm not sure that even works anyway, but maybe it depends on the choice of layout algorithm, too. Padding and other style on the vertex-box may help, too. It's been a few years for me, tbh.
Deciding where the appropriate subgroups are is a bit of an art. Sometimes it's obvious, as in bipartite graphs that are intentionally bipartite. Or, if there is a staged layout like for pipeline architectures. Sometimes it's not obvious even when it seems it should be, like when graphviz really wants to make a certain edge really short. Be ready to backtrack sometimes. Then I usually remove the subgroup border after I'm done, but a few times they have been useful to leave there.
One thing I really like about DOT is that adding hyperlinks to the vertices and edges that translate decently into the compiled output is really nice. I had an oncall dashboard that made liberal use of this feature that I still think back on fondly sometimes.
Can you point to where I can learn more about this ?
E.G. an example and explanation exists for hyper link embedding ?
I am especially interested in syntax suitable to be used in creating something to input into https://www.viz-js.com and creation of SVGs with embedded hyperlinks.
If you're using subgraphs, with an edge across subgraph boundaries, it is slightly order dependent - a node will appear in the area it was first mentioned in. If you define all the nodes/subgraphs first and all the edges at the bottom you'd never notice this though.
I'll go ahead and say that neovim is bad. Any reason to use neovim has long since past.
I didn't start the editor wars, but the neovim team jumped in with both feet. They deserve the ire of those of us who never wanted to see vim forked in the first place, let alone a half-assed broken "neo" version.
The scariest difference between OpenAI and Google right now is: Ask Gemini who owns the code it writes, and it'll confidently say that Google does. Ask OpenAI, and it'll say that you do. It's that easy to choose which one is the better decision.
