5C5C5C @ 5C5C5C @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

245

Joined

2 yr. ago

Except the kinds of genocide that will happen under Trump will, by any shred of evidence that anyone has ever seen, be far more frequent and more aggressive than the ones that happen under Biden. It's not just about Biden being the less bad choice for Americans, he is also the less bad choice for the world.

Trump has literally said that he will break treaties by not supporting from NATO allies who "haven't paid" if Russia attacks them. He would certainly pull support from Ukraine if elected, which will effectively be a genocide of the Ukrainian people. When he was president he practically initiated a war with Iran, and it was only prevented because Iran uncharacteristically decided to be the adult in the room.

Allowing Trump to get reelected only empowers everything you claim to oppose, and we can't even pretend that there's any uncertainty in that this round because we've actually seen it. Maybe you're an accelerationist who would like to see Trump literally destroy America inside-out, but let me tell you there's going to be a whole lot of genocide along that path before America actually collapses, so...

Violence implies that harm is happening. In mind, the most harmful thing about neutering a human without their consent is the subsequent trauma that the person needs to live the rest of their life knowing that they will not be able to reproduce. Non-human animals don't carry that burden and therefore won't experience that trauma. They can go about the rest of their lives in perfectly happy ignorance.

The physical aspect of the operation is a negligible concern. They recover from that just fine. Animals of all kinds need to undergo surgical operations for many reasons, and it's not considered violence.

As for humans with severe hereditary genetic disorders, I personally think they should consider making a choice to not reproduce. If parenthood is something important to them and they're qualified to be a parent, they should consider adopting. I have no inheritable genetic issues myself but I'm still of the mind that I should choose to adopt instead of giving birth even though there is a part of me that wants to have a biological child very badly. But I need to consider what's good for humanity as a whole, and too many humans on this planet is not good, so I believe I should avoid contributing to that problem.

So the difference is, a human can be reasoned with and make their own decision. Whether or not people ordinarily do make reasoned decisions about important matters is another concern; the salient point is that they can.

I'm not going to force a person to make the decision that I personally think is right, but at least an attempt can be made. With non-human animals we can't even make that attempt. And when it comes to people whose mental faculties are so severely limited that they can't comprehend the situation they're in, that kind of person is obviously not fit for parenthood and likely can't function independently. At that point I hope their caretaker will make sure that they aren't exposed to opportunities for unintentional childbirth.

The non-human animals aren't in a position where consent (or lack thereof) can be accounted for. They aren't neurologically able to comprehend the consequences of their activities or the detriment it brings about when they follow their instincts. They also don't comprehend that the operation will make parenthood impossible, so they're not left to suffer from any mental trauma or sense of loss afterwards.

And if all that isn't enough, there just isn't a viable alternative for controlling the domestic animal population: We can't educate the animals to let them make informed decisions. We can't get them to use contraceptives. We can't convince or trick them to stop having sex. We also don't have the means to keep them all contained, and in any case that would be far more detrimental to their mental and emotional health than being neutered.

I genuinely wonder what the kompromat is on Sensor Tuberville. He seems to do everything in his power to help Putin's military interests.

This is exactly what I thought about abortion rights but they really went and plowed ahead on that.

Now they've shifted the culture wars over to trans rights and whatever other kinds of bigotry they can muster up. There's really no bottom to the depths of horribleness that they're willing to plumb.

Then you don't actually know anything about Reagan or his party.

I've had the privilege of switching from C++ to Rust almost completely in my professional work. I can tell you in no uncertain terms, the language itself makes an enormous difference.

When I was doing highly concurrent multi-threaded programming in C++, I would sometimes have to waste entire weeks hunting down subtle data race bugs, despite the fact that I have a solid understanding of concurrency and multithreading. In some cases the bugs would originate in third party libraries that I was using, even though those libraries came from credible sources like Microsoft, Google, and GNU.

Switching to Rust, those bugs are gone. By the time my code compiles there's at 95% chance that it will work exactly the way it's intended to without any debugging. The remaining 5% is silly little logic accidents like saying if condition { ... } when I meant to say if !condition { ... } and those bugs are trivially caught by writing a few simple unit tests (and Rust also makes it easier to write unit tests than any other language I know of).

When I see my colleagues struggle with debugging problems in their JavaScript, Python, or C++ code, almost every time it turns out to be something that would've been trivially caught by the Rust compiler.

By no means does using Rust guarantee that your code will be completely bug free. But the language alone gets you so close to that goal that it hardly takes any special effort beyond compiling to get all the way there.

I think this is a huge reason that the ecosystem grows as quickly as it does: it's so easy to write code that you can feel confident enough about to publish for anyone to use that many people go ahead and do that, and others feel confident using the work of others because the compiler does so much to ensure quality. It creates a virtuous cycle where people can develop faster by taking advantage of other people's efforts and then release their own effort back into the community.

Whenever people complain that in Rust "the compiler is tough to beat", the real problem is that individual's mindset.

I had this problem as well when I first started playing with Rust. I thought I was very smart and that I know exactly what I'm doing when I'm programming, so if the compiler is complaining so much about my code, it's just being a dumb jerk.

But if you stick with it instead of giving into your initial frustration, you'll realize that the truth is the compiler is your friend and is saving you from innumerable subtle bugs that you'd be putting into your code if you were using any other language.

When you realize that the 1.5x time+effort you need to spend to satisfy the Rust compiler is saving you 5x-50x time+effort that you'd have to spend debugging your program if you had written it in any other language, you'll come to appreciate the strictness of the compiler instead of resenting it.

There's a reason us crustaceans are so zealous and the ecosystem is growing so rapidly, and it's not because we're super smart or have some unusually high work ethic. It's because the language and the tooling is legitimately really good for producing high quality software at a rapid pace.

There's going to be an inflection point where the people who keep dismissing Rust are going to be left behind by the entire tech industry because there's no other language that allows an ordinary developer to produce as high quality software as quickly that can work across EVERY platform, including web (via compiling to web assembly). I won't pretend I can predict exactly when that inflection point will happen, but it will definitely happen.

Different species may have different ages of brain maturity at which point alcohol won't pose as much of a risk of stunting their mental development. Elves for example settle into adulthood at around 100 years of age.

So a responsible legislature would codify in its laws what the minimum drinking age is for each species based on science's best understanding of their physiology.

The post is literally describing existential nihilism, whoops.

Yep, it's a private entity so very legal and very cool as they like to say.

Five years ago I installed Windows 10 direct from Microsoft's online store onto my Ubuntu laptop so I could play some Windows-only games.

It was fine for a while, but after some updates the Start menu began shoving ads (I believe Candy Crush was a big one) into my shortcut panels.

It's true that I could go deleting them one-by-one, and probably hunt down settings to disable them, but I find it repulsive that I paid for an operating system only to be personally made into a product for Microsoft on top of that. I've decided I'm never going to spend another dollar on such predatory behavior, even if it means I'm throwing away a significant portion of my video game library.

I bet the most important factor in his healthcare is all the physical and mental exercise that he got from continuing to build houses for the underprivileged into his 90s.

You have that totally backwards.

The board (which is the board of the non-profit) wanted the company to be more focused on its mission and less profit-driven. Altman is the one that's been letting Microsoft get its tendrils around OpenAI and push a narrative that everything must be closed off and profit focused.

That's explained by the muscle memory of the sleeve that he's in. A mouth that has only practiced pronouncing American English will not have the neural pathways to pronounce words in a Japanese way. The consciousness and memories transfer but the sleeve doesn't change.

It's a convenient plot device but also it fits the narrative cleanly.

The difference is that for one side the "violations of the Geneva convention" are not being carried out by the duly elected government 🤔

This is a rare case where sentient is being used correctly. Sentient beings do have feelings, e.g. dogs and cats are sentient and can have cravings and even feel hate.

Sapient means having enough intellect to understand and reason about the situation. The post doesn't actually require that.

A statement like "veganism is unhealthy" is so objectively wrong that it really harms your credibility in general. I wonder how much you actually read from the article, or did you just grab the title and run with it?

There are a small number of specific nutrients that are readily available in meat that are harder to come by in a vegan diet. Harder but entirely possible, especially with supplements.

And many of the meat alternatives that you were disparaging earlier are specifically engineered to provide those nutrients (in particular Impossible and Beyond brands).

"Veganism is unhealthy" in the same way that any eating pattern is unhealthy if you aren't mindful of what you're eating. Conventional meat-based diets have much higher risk of heart disease due to high cholesterol, so let's go ahead and label that unhealthy too.

Mirror universe Janeway would use the caretaker technology to conquer the Delta Quadrant and become the Borg queen without even being assimilated.