Aside from arguments about performance and memory safety, I'm generally more likely to try something written in Rust (or Go) because projects in those languages tends to be easy to build or download as a static binary. For Rust projects, `cargo install <name>` generally works. On the other hand, when I see something written in C++ or Python, it's an indicator that there may be significantly more work involved
As a counterpoint - I'm generally more likely to avoid tools built in Rust or Go. Because I don't have their toolchains installed at all times. With tools written in C - I can often just clone repo and build it with one-two commands without clobbering my dotfiles or downloading big toolchains, that otherwise useless for me.
I agree with you on Python, but I also want to add Javascript. Just remembering trying to install something from npm sends shivers down my spine. Never again.
I live in the US and I see something similar when shopping at Aldi. They charge like 5 or 10 cents per bag, but it's enough that most people will bring their own or not use bags at all. It's a small fee, but it has a significant impact, and it's great that you can still get bags if you need them.
I'd much prefer cities and states impose a small tax like this instead of a ban. It would reduce usage without risking harmful, unintended consequences like we see in California.
During recent protests in California, a white couple waved guns at the protestors. It was clearly, they had higher status, rich, white, and thus got a slap on the wrist. Black man on subway, yells, and dies. Very different outcomes.
White, can wave guns around and make threats, its ok.
Black, can raise voice, get killed, the killing is viewed as ok.
It's quite easy to spin a false narrative when you cherry-pick cases, misrepresent facts, and leave out important context.
> a white couple waved guns at the protestors
If this is the case I'm thinking of, the protesters had broken down a gate and were trespassing on their property. What were they supposed to do in that situation? Risk their lives and property by putting themselves at the mercy of the mob?
> Black, can raise voice
That's a hell of a euphemism for "threatening to kill people". Apparently the subway riders felt that he was a real threat, because he was restrained by 3 people, and all of the passengers that have spoken up about it seemed to think it was necessary
Mr Callahan described the demonstrators as a "racially mixed and peaceful group, including women and children", who had made a wrong turn on the way to their protest. There was no evidence the group was armed, he said.
Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters
Videos and photographs show the couple pacing on their Portland Place property, periodically pointing the weapons at the crowd
For the Yelling
I've seen a lot of people yelling about killing people. People act out, 'verbally'. Typically they calm down. Yelling didn't use to be a crime, especially with a death sentence.
And what purpose would that serve? Tesla is not a media company. It doesn't publish news and it doesn't claim to be objective. Nobody is interested in how their sources of funding might bias their coverage of events because that's completely irrelevant to a car company
It currently says "Publicly funded media", not "Government-funded Media", and that muddies the waters a bit - publicly-funded doesn't necessarily mean government-funded.
Not sure if it said "Gov-funded" an hour ago when you commented or not, as the other person who replied to you suggests that changes to these statements appear to be pretty fluid at the moment.
"Publicly funded media" seems like a decent way of characterizing NPR. At some point one might question what Twitter and its users are getting out of all this labeling and relabeling, though. How many users are going to have an I had no idea NPR was publicly funded media but now I know epiphany when encountering that label?
> Not sure if it said "Gov-funded" an hour ago when you commented or not
I am pretty sure all the observations made on labels in this thread were accurate at the moment they were made.
It was there yesterday from what I recall. However, there are like 10 variant official accounts of BBC. Only one had the label at first. Similar to how NPR has multiple accounts but only the "main" one had the label. Twitter should be more consistent in labeling all accounts under a company if this is the new policy.
Did you actually read the article? If this was just due to increased diagnosis, one would expect rates of self-harm and suicide to stay the same or fall as kids are able to get better treatment for mental health issues. Instead, we see the opposite happening, self-harm is going up in lockstep with diagnosis, which suggests that the increase in diagnosis corresponds to a real increase in mental health problems among teens.
Much of the Earth's surface is not suitable for growing trees, either because it's too dry, to wet, to cold, poor soil or lack of soil, etc. The article gives examples of planting in places where trees don't typically grow, on coastlines and in deserts, so it's not at all surprising that the trees planted there died. This is why I've always been skeptical of tree planting initiatives. In areas where they can survive, trees will just naturally appear on unused land, there's no need to plant them. If this isn't happening on it's own, it's probably because the conditions there aren't right for them.
Some would argue that where conditions for trees aren't suitable, the solution is to build a forest there. Forests themselves are the best terraforming tool, if you can get them started by supplying the necessary nutrients, energy, and water.
I don't know how feasible it is, but using trees to transform parched landscapes is the mission of a company I interviewed at a while back called Terraformation, founded by the former CEO of Reddit.
To add reference to the claim that, "forests themselves are the best terraforming tool", one can take the example of Ascension Island. With the introduction of outside trees that formed an ecological foothold, they started cooling humid air and reinforcing the soil so that other plants and trees can flourish.
Looking at the satellite photos, a lot of the Island is still quite barren.
Strangely enough, the Google maps satellite imagery is almost useless. Use Apple maps instead. If not on an Apple device, you can access Apple maps via https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ascension+island (note: satellite imagery is not available this way on my iDevice).
Here is another BBC article, which I think is far more balanced and talks about the negative issues of the biological cost of the planting: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36076411
The last volcanic eruption was 1508 or so. I did a quick Google to find some information on how long takes it generally takes for vegetative regeneration after volcanic eruptions. Looks like it depends on type of eruption and rainfall: “Mount Kelud in East Java has erupted on a 15–37-years cycle for the past centuries [snip] Within 3 years of the eruption, stem diameters were 3–10 cm. [snip] being able to establish itself rapidly in the extreme conditions that prevail after a recent ash deposition event (given the short return period of eruptions), but by enriching the ash deposits with nitrogen, paves the way for grasses to take over, which in turn delay succession to other woody vegetation” (not sure if the landscape was purely volcanically virgin). Obviously it can also takes centuries in the example of Ascension. A study in Hawaii looked at the order that types of vegetation took hold: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/5/chap8...
> trees will just naturally appear on unused land, there's no need to plant them. If this isn't happening on it's own, it's probably because the conditions there aren't right for them.
That is only true if the seeds can travel to get there! Moving many miles or uphill via seed dispersal is a slow process. The climate gradients and habitat pressures are moving much faster. While I agree that land suitable for forests will eventually reforest itself, if we want to do it on human timescales, we may need to kick-start the process with a seed transfer program.
The Asians present in North America are not a random sample. A large portion of them came here specifically to work in STEM or other fields requiring high levels of intelligence and education. It's very probable that the ones here are, on average, significantly more intelligent than both the average American and the average Asian in Asia.
For that matter, the Asians you see in studies of the average test scores in somewhere like “China” aren’t representative of the educational ability of the average rice paddy farmer, but of more urbanized populations.
