Translating garbage code creates even worse garbage code. I remember years ago a company I was with hired a company to translate COBOL to Java.

It was still crap when it was all over and the project was flushed. The biggest sin was the naming conventions used by the original code were maintained.

I've migrated code from one language to the other, and the best end results I've achieved were when I reverse engineered the original code and wrote the new code from scratch. It took longer, but in the process we discovered bugs that were then corrected in the new code. I loved it when the QA people would come back to me and say the results weren't the same, only to discover the original program had an undiscovered error.

I'm sure simple programs can be converted this way. My prediction is the big programs that no one wants to work on will still be crap code no one wants to work on after being converted. If they even run right.

It's not that bad yet, but I think it is a lot closer than the average American believes it is. All the mechanisms are in place, they just haven't been fully employed yet because they're being pushed a little at a time so there's no big incitement to revolution.

It's too late for that, 'law enforcement' has unfettered access to Americans within the US. It doesn't matter what OS you use when they can just march in and disappear you.

Tech bros are difficult to classify. I think they might be the new version of the 80s finance bros; people who have control of an industry where money seems easy to make, influence and power come with the job, but who don't really have the expertise that should be required for the job... except mix that a bit with a toxic engineer personality instead of a toxic jock personality.

You need a national program pushing Linux right now. Windows is a backdoor into every company that uses it - Microsoft can install whatever it wants, monitor whatever it wants, exfiltrate whatever it wants.

365 is exponentially worse, because you can't even shut the computer off if you discover it's happening. Microsoft will tell you the data is, as per your local laws, in a data center in an approved region... but it's all accessible from the USA.

It's one call from the Trump admin away from being an active compromise. It's not like the Trump admin hasn't already been dumb enough, multiple times, to pull the trigger on things that only work once and then make everything worse for themselves going forward.

I can't see any point to this other than providing LinkedIn ai training data.

  I *want* ai to keep clearly sounding like fucking ai (although, being honest, I can't think of a single post on LinkedIn that didn't sound like it was written by a robot, ever).

Oh, so you don't have kids.
Parents don't get the luxury of "giving up" because it's too much work that might be wasted anyway.

I don't disagree with you that they probably WILL see stuff on the internet but... the reality is that most kids are what ~8bn people would call normal and aside from "your team" pushing trans propaganda like this, will NEVER SEEK IT OUT because most people find it gross. So while they absolutely will see sexual subjects on the web, likely it's normalizing, not degenerate. Which is why the trans-propaganda campaign is working so hard, it's an uphill fight against young people's normal inclinations, you need to 'get them while they're young' to try to move the frame of acceptability. We see it, we understand it, and we (& they) reject it.

Sorry for your loss. Hey, at least you have apparently legions of political sheep willing to sacrifice their children for your ideology.

Your opinion has been filed appropriately.

Insofar as you're being honest about being a libertarian, I genuinely apologize.

Hairsplitting semantics and pretending not to understand idiom are such standard leftist tactics, I admit, I presumed.

To your point, then: Auschwitz was legal, according to German Criminal Codes in 1942. So... to you, not "murder"? Yes, I think this is a stupid point to make and a stupid argument, but you seemed to assert a narrowly-defined concept of murder, just seeing how far you're willing to go? If you are consistent, and affirm that being legal, the Holocaust wasn't murder, I guess you ... win? I would absolutely concede the point.

Do you believe children should be exposed in any way to adult sexuality?
Particularly hypersexualized dancers with sexually suggestive names, acts, gestures, themes?

The fact that you're even asking suggests you're either
- deeply disingenuous or
- a pedo yourself

The answer, in case you're searching for it? It's NO. Just LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE. They don't need to be groomed, thanks.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new...

"....The performer in drag was none other than the president of the PTA at P.S. 96., Frankie Quinones. Video shot by Morales shows him twirling and gyrating to a song by '80s Puerto Rican performer Iris Chacon.

On an event flyer, the drag show was only billed as a âoeSpecial Surprise Performance!â

Morales questioned what organizers were thinking.

âoeHe got on all fours on the choir stand, he laid on his back, raised his legs, opened his legs wide open. What made you in your head think that was appropriate for elementary school students?â Morales said."

It honestly should... but 'good porn'. It can be the worst sex ed ever, but there's no reason it can't introduce kids to what sex is like - or should be like according to whoever is curating the 'good porn' collection.

It could be teaching kids a general level of comfort with sex to avoid some of the first time awkwardness. It could be showing some proper foreplay. Maybe filter out the 'twist the woman into whatever shape gives the camera a good angle and the guy best access to hammer her anus and then go ATM' stuff. Amateur couples porn that isn't targeting OnlyFans would probably be a decent starting place.

Now show me the parents who would sign off on that and I'll show you a bunch of whack jobs who could never be a large enough group to make it happen.

I didn't care what adults do to/with each other, not even faintly but I draw the line at degeneracy with children and kinks that involve them. Even (shudder) with their parents enthusiastic consent.

If it's just about representation and being seen, why aren't they lobbying to dance in front of the elderly?

Thank you, I appreciate your post.
Next time I need to demonstrate to someone
- how the Left seems to treat words like magical spells
- how they like to pretend they don't understand something
- how slashdot has been ideologically captured .... Now I have a single, succinct post to show them. Very neat.

Ok, I'll bite that you're arguing in good faith.

Do I need to quote all the times Democrats - and in particular their leadership - have called conservatives or gop politicians literal Nazis? Racists? Pedophiles (although that seems to be less common, as it starts to become a lifestyle choice for redditors)?

You've used them so repeatedly they've become meaningless even to you.
This is the irony & the hypocrisy of the left in active play: it's fine to insult the right because you agree with it, but a little mud flying back your way has you wetting your panties.

Whatever you focus on, you will get better at. You can play piano obsessively and never be Beethoven, but you will (eventually) acquire competence unless you have a significant mental impairment.

So why would we expect anything else from obsessive focusing during childhood and adolescence? Use your screens to watch interesting, thoughtful, or informative things and you're conditioning your brain with those things. Use them to indulge your worst social instincts on social media and you're going to get 'better' at that, which unfortunately means turning yourself into a miserable person.

Doing this as a kid, when you don't have a couple of decades of other experiences under your belt to soften the impact makes it worse.

 

"I'm totally fine with seeing political positions that I disagree with."

Bullshit.

"That's how political discourse in a democracy is supposed to work."
Yes, and your opinion isn't sacred. For every right wing post that hurt your precious feelings, I can show you ten insisting trannies have the right to do burlesque in front of little kids, women insisting on the right to murder their womb fruit, or gleeful at the murder of Charlie Kirk.*

*hint: yes, that was deliberately inflammatory choice of words because leftists are so amusingly emotional. Your TWO posts saying basically the same thing in this thread alone proves that, cupcake*.

As Justice Douglas wrote in 1949: "...[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea."