calcopiritus @ calcopiritus @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

579

Joined

2 yr. ago

Your Airbnb was someone's home.

Having more people always adds overhead. It's not only software developers.

You don't need to have two developers working on the same piece of code, you can have each one working on a feature. And different teams can develop different projects/products. If a project takes 1 year to complete but you want an output of 2 projects per year, you don't need to overwork your current employees. You can hire a new team so there are 2 simultaneous projects being worked on at the same time.

The answer depends on a LOT of things. Most importantly country of origin.

If you're from Latin America, most people won't even notice. Since we already have huge amount of Latin American immigrants, so we are used to it.

If you're from a "white" country, it's very important that you are respectful to the local culture and try to genuinely learn Spanish. This is mostly a problem with tourists instead of immigrants, but most Spaniards hate with passion when foreigners complain about things not being in English/German/french/whatever.

If you're from a "black" country, it depends on where you move to. In some parts of Spain you'll inevitably face a lot of racism. In others, you'll find groups of people that will try to protect you. But as always, there's always at least some racists.

And of course, don't do crime. But that goes for locals too.

And I think this is a global advice. But people will instantly judge if you are lazy or hard-working. If you help your local community without asking much in return, people will probably talk about how hard working you are, and even racists will probably say "for being for country X, he's a nice guy".

Sometimes you can't not have a god class (struct in this case). When doing UI specifically, I always end up with one.

You can try using encapsulation to reduce the amount of fields technically, but in the end it's the same amount of information in a single god class.

The comment you replied to originally was talking about why billionaires should support a democratic society.

If the society is not democratic, it would be authoritarian. Therefore what I explained could happen.

A billionaire cannot exist in 2 countries at the same time. It doesn't matter if his company is multinational, he isn't.

If you jail that billionaire, which is not hard as a state if said billionaire resides in your country, you can "convince" him to give even assets in foreign countries.

That's why they removed his passport.

I can block .ml communities in my GUI. But I can't block its users, unless I go 1 by 1. Blocking the communities is big, but not enough.

The supreme court gave total immunity to the president while Biden was president. He didn't use it a single time.

I don't know how hackaday works. Is literally anyone allowed to write articles full of non-factual information?

Rust: has stronger typing than C. This guy: I don't like rust since it's weakly typed.

Also this guy: doesn't uses cargo because it downloads from the internet without taking the 5 seconds of research to know that --offline exists.

Also this guy: I don't like that rust calls C unsafe. It's safer than assembly.

The guy is just dumb as rocks.

I'm not talking about the technical possibility. Of course you can have multiple video stream, one per participant.

I'm saying that without multicast, it can be more resource intensive than having intermediate servers that can multicast on the application layer.

Is a connection between 3+ people still p2p? Or is there another term for it?

I don't know how this would work over the internet though.

On a LAN you could use multicast, but I don't think ISPs support multicast, it seems like it would be an easy way to DoS. But I honestly don't know.

So, if you can't multicast, the way to have serverless multi-user video calls would be to have a separate video feed for each receiver, which I can see using more resources than through a server that would replicate the stream to all the receivers. Of course this is dependant on distance, even without multicast it consumes more resources if everyone is in the same LAN.

1. My argument has nothing to do with trans or sports. My point is that his opinions are not contradictory.
2. Yor point has gone from "you are wrong for being a contrarian" to: "you are wrong because _____"

Fill in the blank please.

And what I'm saying is that what you claim I claimed was never claimed by me.

Since the discussion seems to have derailed let me do a brief summary:

• Original guy: here are some opinions I have
• Other guy: your opinions don't make sense, some of them contradict other ones
• Me: they don't contradict at all. It is perfectly coherent to have those opinions.
• You (correct me if I'm wrong): your opinion is wrong because it seems you're a contestant for a contrarian contest.

I tried to make the least offensive analogy possible in order to have a logical conversation around the topic. But it still got an emotional response. I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

The second paragraph is called projection. I never made the claim that those opinions are correct because they are contrarian, yet you keep making the claim that they're incorrect because they are contrarian.

I don't understand how being contrarian or not makes an opinion less or more valid. Who decides what mainstream is? Whoever gets more upvotes? We should never ever have an opinion that will get downvoted on Lemmy? Or is it a democratically elected process? In that case, the mainstream opinion in the US in 2020 was that the best person to be the president was Donald trump. Does that make it correct?

You're yet to give any argument other than "those opinions are wrong because they are contrarian"

First of all, that's not my opinion. I'm defending the other guy. Since he's getting his opinion denied under the untrue argument that his opinion is contradictory, when it is not. See the user names.

Second point, "not supporting trans athletes because they are a small group" is not at all what I said, but you are acting as if that were what I said. Let me repeat it again so you can see the difference: you don't need to support every policy that claims to support a small subset of a group in order to claim that you support that group.

Since it seems hard to understand let me say an example. There is country "chairland" where the chairpeople leave happily. Inside chairland there is a town called "tabletown". Person A says: "tabletown people should have free access to Netflix!" And person B says: "No, I love chairpeople, but tabletown is not entitled to free Netflix". Is the claim of people B contradictory? Can't a person support chairland but not support giving tabletown free Netflix?

And yes, everything in that original comment made by the other guy are opinions. "Trans women should compete in women leagues" is not a fact, doesn't matter how progressive you are, it is under every definition of the word: an opinion.

You are free to have any opinion you want, I don't believe in thought crimes. I don't know why you place such importance on "contrarian". Is someone that has an opinion different than yours a contrarian? Are contrarian opinions not valid? Therefore, are opinions different than yours not valid?

Contrarian about what? Who are the contestants? I don't understand your comment.

What is it revealing that I supposedly didn't want?

Yes. I believe that you can support a political group without supporting 100% of the policies that supposedly support that group.

Basically because it's impossible fro 100% of the people on the group to agree on exactly which policies are hurtful and which are helpful.

Of all the things in your comment, getting right the "you probably call yourself a centrist" is the least significant part. You're wrong in all the rest of your comment, which is the actually important part.

Whether someone calls themselves left, right or center is way less important than the policies they support.

Because guess what. You can't fit the entire world in 3 political buckets and expect everyone in each bucket to have the same opinion as everyone else on that bucket.

As I said in another comment. The world is not black and white. There's lots of shades of grey.

And each person has a different combination of shades of grey for each political topic.

There is no contradiction.

Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn't make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.

You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.

You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.