I am pro socialism and asking what kind of details is missing in pro-socialist arguments that you find capitalists explain well?

You know what I figured out as a man? Just listen to the other party in this order of increasing priority: body language, facial expression, their words. MAIN THING TO AVOID: Never assume they are/will be comfortable with you. Never assume consent with body language or facial expression. If they want to be romantically involved THEY will approach you.

Before I was married my mind was on alert talking women in order not to come off as creepy. This was with women whom I had purely platonic relationships like my coworkers or college mates. I am aware the effect men have with their staring. To this day when I am walking on the street I make sure to not walk behind women. If I can i overtake them. If not I just change directions even if my destination is straight ahead. Treating the nonfamily women in my life like I would treat men should be the right thing to do… but its not easy with the reputation that men have among women.

So my point effectively is just don’t be creepy and pushy. Just be polite and reciprocate interest. Otherwise just treat them like your sister or guy friend.

Your take needs evidence to prove that Russia indeed has the low-end chip market captured.

People think your “Russia has the low-end chip manufacturing market cornered” argument is not backed by evidence.

One thing neo-liberals and dictator loving pretend-communists agree on: Reddit is a cesspool.

How is it a separate discussion?

I am quite cheeky for saying this but:

How is it leaky if the default paradigm of any sequential program is the expectation that it will block? If i write blocking socket code I know my thread is blocked until read() returns.

If i am writing async socket code I know to wait for poll or whatever it is that is the correct way to wait nowadays. My design would reflect that. The blocking is just moved to another thread effectively and this abstraction is packaged as a Future.

Asynchronous code does not require the rest of your code to be asynchronous. I can’t say the same for blocking code.

Well this is just stating a tautology isn’t it?

Edit:

It would be a Hurculean effort, and I don’t think it’s a sustainable approach. If you’re writing a higher level library, it would be a lot to ask to check if your dependency’s dependency’s dependency maybe reads from a socket.

I guess I understand what’s the argument here.

The author wants a safeguard against libraries that are blocking with compiler checks. I agree it is a nice thing to have. But they could have mentioned that without saying “blocking code is leaky abstraction”.

What kind of details can you not fathom in a functioning sustainable system? It shouldn’t be more difficult than “more! MORE AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYBODY ELSE!”

Its easy to think about vectors in the first sense (as anything with direction and magnitude) when we’re working with classical units (space, force, electric fields, etc)

But it becomes a nightmare to understand intuitively when the vector is defined as something with magnitude and direction when speaking about units that are not obvious to us humans (like time)

A very bad one if it requires switching off a large portion of your brain to find it funny.

Not aware of the toxicity… any starting point for this storyline?

not available in India too

It’s the most reachable thing. Markdown feels like a toy for many (not me) and people outside of academia look at you kinkily if you suggest latex and bibtex.

It’s going to be quite rare… and I do like that we have better visual warning to users that something went wrong instead of a wall of colorless text.

Being good has nothing to do with having to maintain your company’s code base that’s in Oracle’s Java SE 1.6.

You can’t just design your way out of a conflict whose solution is to change either the existing system architecture or change Java versions,

both suggestions will get you laughed out of the room.

Oh man this takes me way back. VB’s pick and drop UI builder was so magical. I used to do complex wizard based forms that are probably terrible if I look at them now (If I still preserved them… unfortunately I didn’t) but at the time they looked professional.

It takes time to implement features. Execs and managers don’t want to implement the wheel and developer time costs a lot more money than security vulns.

The fediverse already has a mechanism to guard against some corporation coming in and taking the code from a platform and building a commercial product on top of it - defederation. We don’t need GPL to “protect” us from anyone here

I disagree. The reason GPL works is that legal action (Such as from GNU foundation or EFF) deters bad actors.

The fediverse already has a mechanism to guard against some corporation coming in and taking the code from a platform and building a commercial product on top of it - defederation.

Defederation only helps the corporations: When the corporation comes in, overwhelms the fediverse with their huge network of active instances and then defederate, the only ones holding the bag are the open intances. . It’s much easier for a private corporation to get numbers to defederate and come out on top than for open source enthusiasts.

However, there are also many that want to be recognized (financially) for their work. GPL ignores the latter.

If you want to be financially recognized for building on top of other people’s open source projects then you should write proprietary code. You shouldn’t be allowed to take open source works freely and call the entirety your own. MIT doesn’t prevent that from happening. GPL prevents that from happening.

I don’t believe that is the case any more

It’s actually really important in the long run. There can never be true open source without GPL or similar legal licenses.

That’s when AI crashes because the secret cabal of middle management will direct their brainwashed execs to divest. ^/s

Corporate loves to steal ideas and patent it/copyright it so nobody else gets to steal it next, even the original author of a technique.