Children need heroes to look up to, I’m glad that children of right wingers can look up to him but who do children of left wingers have to look up to? Jeff Bezos is hardly inspiring.
You think Jeff "All WaPo opinion articles must focus on personal liberties and free markets" Bezos is a left-winger? lol.
You must have missed the part where he got divorced and then predictably shifted hard right.
(Being credibly accused of being a sex pest is the only thing more powerful than divorce when it comes to putting men on the right-wing-shift pipeline).
Wouldn’t it be better to spend the time understanding the reality of the situation in Gaza from multiple angles rather than philosophizing on abstract concepts? I.e. there are different degrees of genocide, but that doesn’t matter in this context because what’s happening in Gaza is not abstract or theoretical.
In other words, your question ignores so much nuance that it’s a red herring IMO.
Well, what it's better for me to do is my business and what it's better for voidhorse to do is his/her business. He/she certainly doesn't have to respond.
Still, since he/she was so willing to make a claim of genocide (implicitly) I was wondering that, were it a false claim, would it be equally "blatantly shitty social behaviour, narcissistic use of (often pseudo)intellectualism for his/her narcissistic behaviour" as the behaviour he/she was calling out?
I'm pretty certain I understand the reality of the situation (in fact I'd accept reasonably short odds that I understand it better than anyone participating in the discussion on this story).
What makes you think Israel is capable of having a decent relationship with its neighbors? They never have before. And they have no need to have a decent relationship because they have the US giving them enormous amounts of money and weapons.
I think the best way to fix Israel is to bring in refugees from an unrelated conflict, like Sudan, and once the Sudanese have a significant minority then Israeli politics won’t be ethnofascist anymore.
The obvious solution is to get Israel to give up nukes in exchange for Iran stopping its nuclear program. I think that would everyone happy except the Israelis who want to murder people without repercussion.
It's crazy to me that this is peoples take away. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas have the explicitly stated goal to annihilate Israel and its people. But Israel is the genozidal one. They're attacking military targets in Iran. Iran is bombing urban centers. I'm sure the IDF would very much prefer to only attack military targets in Gaza as well. Unfortunately, the Hamas decided to hide them under houses.
Because 1) America won’t allow nations near Israel to be successful, it’s too much of a threat to our greatest ally and 2) war is incredibly profitable.
Actually they're already "joking" on Israeli TV that Turkey is next, and AEI is on the case making it clear we may need to go to war to take out Turkey next.
Turkish President Erdogan did not hesitate to issue a rare threat to Israel in a party rally, speaking on the ongoing war in Gaza: 'Perhaps we will invade just like we entered Karabakh and Libya'
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/art...
Israel is stooping to Ergodan’s level, sure. But the standard should higher for Democratic countries, nuclear powers, and countries who receive enormous foreign aid from the US for “self defense.”
literally in quote that I gave you, Erdogan claimed that Jerusalem in Turkish. He been entertaining idea of rebuilding Ottoman empire, as of recent.
Most of the western countries for example, those that recognized "palestinian state", don't recognize it in any specific borders. Recognizing it without any borders means that they don't recognize that east jerusalem belongs to it.
I never denied palestinians of their identity. I presented you with palestinians denying palestinian identity.
and btw,
Iran - Pakistan relations are so good that they exchange missile strikes in 2024
Iran - Afghanistan relations are so good that they had border clashes in 2023
Iran - Iraq relations are so good that Iran actively destabilizing Iraq and supports various militias there
Iran - Azerbaijan relations are, to say the least, strained. And Azerbaijan is famously used as Israeli base for spying on Iran.
denying existence of palestinian state is not racist. because it never existed, it doesn't exist now and whatever exist as result of Oslo agreement doesn't meet definition of state.
in previous conversation i said that I don't care how they self identify. for all i care they can identify as Atlanteans.
On the other side, you been denying palestinians their self identification. this is racist. i gave you two example of prominent palestinians who fought for independence and you brushed them off as misguided. this is literally marginalizing self identity of the people that you claim to be ally of.
as example, among those of them who live in Israel (and I think you wouldn't argue with fact that they are same ethnic group) 30% to 60% (depends on survey) self identify as arabs
among those who live in west bank/gaza, some identify as palestinians, some as arabs, some as muslims, some as palestinian arabs and some identify mostly with a their clan or hamula (as Mosab Hassan Yousef whom you dismissed claim). and some as all of those things at same time.
are they all wrong and you right ?
there is a bunch of papers "out there" about evolution of palestinian identity. i'll suggest you to read them instead of harassing a bunch of people here and claiming that they are racists.
I tried engaging this guy a few days ago, he’s very single minded in his opinions. He’s not interested in reason, only in hating a certain group of people who originate from a particular region in the Middle East. It’s good to see others are trying but you’re just gonna end up frustrated as he ties himself in knots to paint you as bigot while displaying many of those same traits.
But software developers often struggle to use sql and prefer using ORMs or analytical APIs like polars; the people who excel at sql are typically not programmers, they’re data engineers, DBAs, analysts, etc.
Maybe a similar bifurcation will arise where there are vibe coders who use LLMs to write everything, and there are real engineers who avoid LLMs.
Maybe we’re seeing the beginning of that with the whole bifurcation of programmers into two camps: heavy AI users and AI skeptics.
What you can achieve with the standard SQL is taught on universities. The whole package. I’ve never met a developer, who struggled with that. When you use ORMs you need to follow SQL’s logic anyway. People use ORMs to avoid painful data conversions. Not to avoid the logic. Data engineers, DBAs, analysts, etc excel in specific databases, not in “SQL”.
Ive worked in BI and data engineering my whole career and I’ve met plenty of programmers who struggled immensely with SQL once it went further than select and group by. And don’t get me started about their database design skills. It’s way too often a disaster hidden behind “it works for the software so good enough”.
Im more surprised by software engineers who do know these things than by the ones who don’t.
I’ve worked with gameplay programmers who can’t do simple 3D math, c++ programmers who fundamentally don’t understand pointers, backend developers who didn’t understand globals were shared state and cause race conditions, etc.
It’s not that SQL is hard, it’s that for any discipline the vast majority of people don’t have a solid grasp of the tools they’re using. Ask most tradespeople about the underlying thing they’re working with and you’ll have the same problem.
I'm a developer and:
- I hate ORMs, they are the source for a lot of obscure errors behind layers and layers of abstractions.
- I prefer analytical APIs for technical reasons, not just the language.
Reasons:
- I can compose queries, which in turn makes them easier to decompose
- It's easier to spot errors
- I avoid parsing SQL strings
- It's easier to interact with the rest of the code, both functions and objects
Well, the problem in ORM is the O. Objection-orientation is just a worse way to organise your data and logic than relational algebra.
It's just a shame that many languages don't support relational algebra well.
We had relations as a datatype and all the relevant operations over them (like join) in a project I was working on. It was great! Very useful for expressing business logic.
It's not enough, there is no way to represent some db stuff (not relational, more impl oriented) or some special queries in the program with an ORM. No ORM I have seen comes close to 100% of what you could do with the DB. So still the best way to get closest to the db is using raw queries in the program, but of course that does not scale with more tables, does not scale with more db engines, and does not scale with juniors taking over your codebase and not understanding it.
So to conclude, objection-orientation is fine and relational is fine too, the issue is that the optimal way to translate between them does not scale.
I'm with the first part of your comment. But why do you suddenly conclude that object orientation is good?
If your language supports relation, there's no need to badly translate to objects. (And even if your language doesn't support everything your database does, there's still less of an impedance mismatch if you use an 'RRM' instead of an ORM.)
Are you saying that expecting software developers to know how to use SQL is a no true scotsman fallacy? What's next? Do we stop expecting people to know how FOR loops work?
Do you think that's where I'm going with that? Expectations for people and for loops?
> 'real' engineers can use SQL just fine.
To be very explicit instead of snarky about my point: I think it is both factually incorrect and unnecessary gatekeeping to say real engineers know sql and imply not knowing sql marks someone as not a real engineer, hence the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
I probably agree with most of your opinions here within the context of the thread - I think good engineers can learn sql and other tools as necessary. I don't, however, think experience with any particular technology is a valid bar for a good or bad engineer at this point and I'm happy to speak against that when I see it.
Aren't data engineers programmers? That is to say, a data engineer is-a software engineer?
I share your sentiment though - I'm a data engineer (8 years) turned product engineer (3 years) and it astounds me how little SQL "normal" programmers know. It honestly changed my opinion on ORMs - it's not like the SQL people would write exceeds the basic select/filter/count patterns that is the most that non-data people know.
Claude made this point while reviewing my blog for me: the mechanization of farms created a whole lot more specialization of roles. The person editing CAD diagrams of next year's combine harvester may not be a farmer strictly speaking, but farming is still where their livelihood comes from.
> Strictly speaking, farming is where all our livelihoods come from, in the greatest part. We're all living off the surplus value of food production.
I don't think farming is special here, because food isn't special. You could make exactly the same argument for water (or even air) instead of food, and all of a sudden all our livelihoods would derive ultimately from the local municipal waterworks.
Whether that's a reductio ad absurdum of the original argument, or a valuable new perspective on the local waterworks is left as an exercise to the reader.
Water largely isn't fundamenally transformed with use (unless it's involved in a chemical reaction, though that's a minute fraction of all water usage), though it may be dispersed or degraded (usually contaminated with something). But it can recover its earlier state with appropriate applications of process and energy. Water (and much else we consume) is a material input rather than an energy input.
With energy inputs it is the energy potential itself which provides value, and that potential is intrinsically consumed in their use. Water, wood, iron, aluminium, lithium, helium, etc., can all be recycled, restored to their useful state, at comparatively little cost.
Collecting the waste products of food don't give you that, on two counts. First, most of the actual metabolic output is gaseous and lost to the atmosphere at large (CO2 and water vapour in your breath), and to the extent that solid and liquid human waste are useful in producing new food, it's a nutrient fertilisers which enable energy conversion of sunlight to fuel, and not the primary energy input itself (sunlight).
I think you would want to be talking about entropy, not energy?
Recycling all the materials you mentioned costs 'energy' (to use your terminology). The same for food: we can use used-up food and a lot of energy and grow new food.
The process for 'recycling' wood is basically the same that for recycling food: you grow some plants. The waste products of used up wood are also basically the same as those for used up food.
---
In any case, I don't see how any of this makes food more special than eg petrol or sunlight?
And you can argue that food is only useful, if we have air, ie oxygen to burn it with.
Except in a few places drinkable water is in such abundance that nobody every spent significant effort trying to get it. Likewise for air, few people have ever spent much effort getting air to breathe - even in the worst polluted areas bottled air was reserved for airplanes, hospitals (and a few people with medical conditions), and scuba divers.
And food is now in such abundance (at least in the western world) that we don't spend much effort on it, either. Or at least, if you only care about energy and nutrition, you can get it for really cheap. If you want something tastier, you can pay more. Exactly the same with drinks.
You could argue that water being so cheap is exactly what you'd expect when the surplus value of water production is sky-high: people only spend a fraction of their income on both food and water production, exactly because the surplus is so high.
Thus if water isn't the basis for all our livelihoods, neither is food production these days.
Removing jobs that could only be performed by those living near the particular fields with those that can be done anywhere makes jobs for the person willing to take the least satisfactory compensation for the most skill and work.
Working the summer fields was one of the least desirable jobs but still gave local students with no particular skills a good supplemental income appropriate for whichever region.
depending on the job, it may also allow you to select for talent much better, which creates intense competition and raises salaries significantly.
A good example of this phenomenon is sports. Even thought it can't be done remotely, it's so talent dependent that it's often better to find a great player in a foreign country and ask them to work for you, rather than relying exclusively on local talent. If it could be a remote job, this effect would be even greater.
Increasing total prosperity is the wrong goal if distribution is completely unregulated. Investor and real estate owning classes like the 1% get more, the salaries can trend down because food costs are down, in a deflation spiral the youth are perpetual dependents and/or debtors who can't possibly earn enough over day to day costs given global competition includes people with no debts or debts from an economy that was less wealthy.
I use BeeFiles for all my important files. I can access them anywhere, it’s not a subscription it’s a one time purchase, and it supports backup to external hard drive as well as backup to an online service (subscription based).
Synology really did a good job of building something non technical people could use as an alternative to onedrive etc.
Yeah I had a coworker who put salty MessageBox.Show debug messages in the code, and one day while demoing the software a pop up appeared that said “BITCH!!!”
Needless to say the customer was not amused. So the simple solution is just ban the bad words from the source code.
I wrote something similar in another comment. This is where I have seen curse words bite teams too. It is always the needless "joke" when debugging that surfaces. Just go boring. No one gets offended by "check 001."
Well, I do get offended by "check 001" - please just put some words there about what was checked. The worst offender of course is "unexpected error occurred" - my PTSD is so triggered by that one. Just freaking give me some error details!
I mean, in a broad sense this is true. But do you really think Sam Altman wouldn’t be in the news if he wasn’t Jewish? What about SBF? Or go back further, do you think people know about Einstein or Karl Marx only because they were Jewish?
Like it or not, Jews have been involved at a high level in a lot of pivotal developments in the west.
I don't think that "No Jews No News" hints that Altman is in the news only because he's Jewish. It means that people care about _bad things_ more when they're done by Jews. The fact that Einstein is Einstein and Marx is Marx is only relevant if you're claiming that the reason people like blaming Jews is due to jealously of their relative success.
No, the “No Jews, No Jews” saying doesn’t have anything to do with the perceived negativity of the news item. It has to do with the fact that Jews were involved in some way (good or bad).
I’m pointing out is that maybe that’s because Jews are just more involved in pivotal developments than are non-Jews.
Making this about “bad news” implies that there’s systematic racism against Jews in the news industry, and I’m sorry but that seems a bit far fetched.
The idea as I understand it (and I'm not expressing personal agreement with it) is that similar things can be done by non-Jews and they will not be newsworthy. For example, Assad murdered around 500k Syrians and yet Google searching for "Genocide Syria" yields 1/4 of the results "Genocide Israel" gives, even though the number of deaths in Gaza is 1/10. Similar story for "Famine Yemen" vs "Famine Gaza". Or the fact that the UN has condemned Israel more times than the rest of the world combined. No Jews No News means that bad things are happening everywhere all the time, but they have higher likelihood of reaching the news if the one to blame is Jewish. In other words it's not about how you phrase the story, it's about which stories are told more than others.
