many people here believe private business has a right to control anything they please (their platform, their rules) and to some extent they are right but the infuriating thing is that the banhammer is obviously not just. so one has to ask; what is their function?
please can someone explain how these troll organisations work? are they using some kind of AI or automated garbage or real people behind every comment? i can not believe what i am reading. there are pictures of dead children and people spamming highfives.
Consider that someone had to kill those children, so I dont think its much of a shock to think there are other people who really support it. There are disgusting people everywhere in society, but before the internet they used to have to hide a little better
Although sad, but this is a great point. We have to find ways to restore the humanity where it is most lost then these voices which support such violence would become fringe and ignored.
a soldier may defer the responsibility and somehow manage to rationalize it. there is also probablity in the equation. but after the fact? horror in front of your eyes how a human being can highfive the death of a children? won't these horrors come home some day? there has got to be some automation going on, these are not human in any sense. i am not talking about a few cases, there are stream of abhorent comments from many accounts.
You're probably right some are automated, but there is still a human behind it, I guess is my point, and even more behind them enabling it. And based on other things i've seen on the net, and heard in real life, I have zero doubt some of those people high fived in real life.
My former coworker could spend an hour justifying peeing on dead soldiers; another can defend cockfighting in once sentence, ending in 'because god said I can.' My dad grew up hearing the only good black man is a dead black man, and that applied to children obviously (dad never took the bait.) There is a whole rainbow of ignorant or angry people in the world
i think i might be wrong about those comments being automated. just watched a few videos on youtube, especially one involving a group of snipers and a child. people are so radicalized. i don't want to sound alarmist but there is something so much bigger on the horizon.
I hate to tell you but we've been at the horizon for a long time now. But journalism wasn't nearly as open years ago, either simply due to access, or lack of stomach.
Pick a decade and you can find a bombed out school, or other mass atrocity.
At some point there has got to be a human in the loop, right? I mean, it’s hard for me to imagine that NLP is sufficiently advanced to automate this. Or maybe the present limitations of NLP systems is what leads to “high-fives” on threads related to Palestinian children deaths but that is accepted as trolling absorbs the energies of pro-Palestinian activists and wastes their efforts.
@dang would you please indulge me once and reply why this thread is flagged? in a moment where earth needs to stand still and witness? this is something straight out of manifacturing-consent.
in exchange, i promise i will no longer participate this medium again.
simplicty is important, but i believe it is not the most important metric for a PL and have no problem with complex PLs. the question; is it worth the trouble? c++s failure is not the complexity but c++ being one of the least orthogonal languages out there. in c++ you are able to compose two great things/ideas (other than my only options are c and c++ this is the biggest reason i prefer c++ over c) yet the end result is not more but less.
Also, Lisp is the most powerful at constructing programs but that means it's the least powerful in the field of making sure your program actually does what you wanted it to - that's what types, borrow checking, proof assistants and so on are for.
(Some people think Lisp is declarative because it's homoiconic but that's not true - you can't find out what a Lisp macro does without executing it.)
> Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better
is it though? if you got the biggest gun why not rob someone else? do you believe ethics/empathy/humanity plays any role in any form governance? since we know that if you can sell the idea, you can get away with anything. why not just do the thing you know best? this is not singling out USA or China in any sense, they are just ahead of the curve, flower of the century.
a system optimized for only profit with almost no accountability (externalities) reads like a recipe to transfer of the wealth from many to few. if you add war into equation many becomes many-brown, many-yellow, many-black, many-jewish, many-others basicaly many-we-can-target-and-get-away-with. if you remove borders from the equation you end up seeing yourself on the receiving end as well. yet no-surprisingly few remains always the same.
so, the question is 'it pays back better to whom?'.
fuck china accounts or usa accounts. i myself never downvote a comment.
you just broke all the rules of hackernews yet no mod here to flag/shadowban/warn you, how fair. you also discarded the entire human race based on your distorted ideas on good/bad yet here you are visible to all eyes.
This entire thread is about politics. First comments where about China threat to Taiwan. Second was about how Taiwan should not move fabs because keeping resources in Taiwan helps ensure US protection. Then there are people bashing on the EU (as why would you put fans there), the China Belt & Road, comments on Trump, etc. It is the nature of a thread like this on this topic. While you may not enjoy the nature of the discussion, the topic of how China handles Taiwan and the western reaction is a valid topic when talking about TSMC.
my only beef with zig/jai is that they both have strong opinions on things like operator overloading and i am afraid they will end up just like java.
i have nothing against having strong opinions, i am the biggest offender but completely disallowing some features, some of the best features static typing can offer is just nonsense.
every language designer should study common-lisp and start with the operators : and :: these two operators alone tell you that the language designed for practical use.
for me overloading the operator + and function 'add' is exactly same. you should then forbid function overloading as well now. you can argue about the weakness of operator overloading but disabling completely, not even a workaround?
why not just enable oo and have safe alternatives instead?
. safe(a + b)
. a s+ b
"It's really easy to make fun of C++, but everyone has that one feature of C++ that they like. And they want to put it in Zig. If everyone had their favorite feature from C++ in Zig, Zig would just be C++. But I'm not going to let that happen."
a language with first class cross-compilation alone is enough for me to respect you as a language designer and zig have so many features like this. i am a huge fan.
i have only one favourite feature in c++ and it is templates/ctfe. without the function/operator-overloading templates are incomplete, i would then use c instead. i am still using c++ with all its failures, with all its complexity, with all its uglyness|ineleganceonly because c++ got one thing right. you can at least somehow modify the language.
edit: i have to point out that i have never worked in a big team (more than 10) and you can (probably should) safely ignore my ideas/opinions.
Maybe I am just a huge dummy, but I have yet to find examples of metaprogramming in the wild that aren't just mind-meltingly hard to grok. (Most of what I have seen is Python and Rust).
I have no doubt about how powerful metaprogramming is, but it makes me feel that understanding and contributing to libraries that use it is out of my reach.
I think what's novel about Zig's approach is that the metaprogramming is just normal code which happens to be executed at compile-time.
I have found that when any project gets to a certain size, it's almost inevitable that metaprogramming will be required, unless you want to make everything super dynamic and sacrifice performance. The idea of being able to do metaprogramming in the language I used to write the program itself is an interesting one.
I don't know if Kelley would agree with my characterization, but I don't see comptime as metaprogramming. Instead it opens the very interesting possibility of having types as values, as long as those values are resolvable at compile time. This lets you do things that feel like metaprogramming (e.g. making a generic container structure) but it seems a better conceptual fit to me that you're programming with types as values rather than generating code from a template or macro.
in fact i believe templates are the greatest idea in static typing. they look awful because its design and the implementation is awful not the idea. c++ failed because they didn't know and too late to turn back, and rust just looks same, you should see d-templates.
proposed and rejected. I went to a lang meeting and tried to steelman the issue, without having a strong investment either way (I had one use case, where I would slightly prefer the infix operation).
Yeah gamedev/simulation is the use-case where I think operator overloading is really a value-add. It's really nice to be able to write linear algebra code which reads like math.
Operator overloading is something that has often been misused, and even if I tend to like syntactic sugar, I understand that being explicit is more important.
When trying to understand a codebase, it is much easier to not worry about hidden indirections.
This is not the role of langage designers to prevent bad programmers to write bad code.
But it is better to avoid giving them too many ways to shoot themselves in the foot.
Forcing the code to be explicit is good design, in my opinion, simply because it is much easier to write code than to read it, we have to put more weight on the clarity side.
Is your point with the ':' and '::' operators that by allowing anybody to break package encapsulation at will the language pragmatically allows for situations that the original package designer did not anticipate? I could see that.
the greatest of all is lisp not being the most mainstream language, and we can only blame the lisp companies for this fiasco. in an ideal world we all would be using a lisp with parametric polymorphism. from highest level abstractions to machine level, all in one language.
[0] https://cosmic.voyage/