If i was understood.
I meant white people can attack their right wing.
We cannot attack our right wing because people jump to defend cultural practices.
If i was understood.
I meant white people can attack their right wing.
We cannot attack our right wing because people jump to defend cultural practices.
Hey. I dont know if a sure fire way. But i leave the door open for good government policy to provide social support.
I could see things like social workers working closely with families. Not to take kids away from parents, but to help people parent. Maybe schools can provide services for things like kids threatened with being disowned or beat...
Also i think the general social environment should allow for discussion. Probably the one that annoys me most is that white people actively attack their right wing. Its not socially acceptable today to attack islams right wing. And i dont mean terrorism here. Just social things. I dont care about the hijab but i mean is it a thing to be celebrated? No where else do western people support slut shaming and female modesty dreas codes. Just treat immigrants with the same standards u expect of anyone else.
If you're actually serious about that question... I'll bite.
I'm a Muslim immigrant to Canada. I'm pretty secular now, but the idea that somehow you immigrate and then in the next generation, you're magically Canadian with Western values is just ignorant.
The culture matters. The numbers matter. The government policies matter.
Get enough people of a certain culture in an area and that culture and way of life becomes dominant. I guess if you thin being British/Canadian is just a piece of paper, then maybe this doesn't matter to you.
I have a lot of family in the UK. It really is a different world. Heck, I don't even go. I have family there 2nd/3rd generation where there is total gender segregation, always talk of Sharia...When new immigrants come, they settle around there to keep the community Islamic.This part is key... as you keep bringing in more people who settle there, it really keep the community a certain way. Once you hit a certain threshold, you're basically created a community that stands on its own with its own ideology.
This is not unique to Islam, by any stretch of the imagination.
You can talk to many Muslim immigrant families. Most will tell you the same thing. Well at least in my life, they have. When the community is small, integration is easy. My in-laws for example, came to Canada in the 70s. Hardly modern by any respect. My father-in-law thought nothing of buy someone a bottle of wine as a gift. He wouldn't drink himself. They're not that secular. My wife often complains that her family completely changed as more and more family was brought in. Few used to wear the hijab. Then everyone started and the social moral police started. Dating started to become more of a scandal if people found out a daughter was dating. Aunts who used to date and got married suddenly turned all religious and forbade their daughters from dating. Islamic school suddenly became a thing... People started wearing the niqab and marrying religious people from Asia. Yeah... now I have 2 silly segregated weddings this summer. lol.
This is the cultural problem. It is then layered with political issues. I don't really hang in dangerous circles, but I've seen what it can do. I know a few girls in the extended family who have actually talked positively of going to the Islamic State as that is real Islam. Yeah... girls born in Canada, but such are their values.
I don't blame this all on immigration. You can have high rates of immigration with the necessary social support. I can say that even in Canada, this social support is just not there. My high school was heavily
Indian immigrants. There was virtually no social support. Parents beating kids. Girls disowned for dating. Forced marriages... all happened.
It's just ridiculously ignorant to think none of this matter and because someone is born in Canada/Britain, nothing else matters.
Anyways, enough of a rant. You get the point. Immigration matters, community matters, culture matters, government policies matters...
I don't think UBI will rely on general taxation.
I don't think you could have enough tax money and political/social will to implement a UBI. Rather it will take some change in the monetary system.
I don't say this is wise to do, but if the central banks can print money / purchase government debt fast enough, it could let them continue functioning. It would require global coordination of course.
But I guess that is the battle between globalists and nationalists.
I honestly don't know if it will succeed, but from where I sit, that is the path progressives and globalists and marching. More power to them if they can make it work. Of course, the dangers of globalists have been well written about it.
There's another solution that I'll add.
Far too much emphasis is put on residential choices and not enough on business choices / city planning.
I used to live in the city (Toronto), but have recently moved out to the Burbs. Here's the thing, I chose to live near a regional rail line. I work downtown. It takes me less time to get to work (30 min) then when I used to live in the city taking the subway...
It got me thinking that all this moralizing over transit is pretty silly. You can have a high intensity downtown living. You can have your suburban living. Assuming things are planned reasonably.
If anything, I'd say, all this crazy drive to get people living close to work and in shoe box condos is all a bit silly. Put the businesses in the central locations.
Then get regional rail to get people from the burbs there.
Regional rail is pretty cheap in comparison to subways. Sure, it runs less often, but it does the job.
I've come to see that the biggest problem we've faced in the suburban office park.
Another Canadian example is the city of Calgary, which kept its downtown business core better than Toronto. It has huge burbs, but also a good LRT system that functions as regional rail.
I generally advise against it.
This doesn't mean it should never be used.
But a lot of the time, it doesn't NEED to be recursive and making it recursive complicates thing.
I'll give a practical example. I worked on router firmware when I first graduated and got assigned this bug where a router in South Korea kept crashing. Really hard to debug it. After a lot of debugging, I found out it was related to the number of ACLs applied to a policy. Went through the code and the section that applies those ACLs was recursive.
So when the number of ACLs got too high, this function was recursively called and it ended up blowing the stack on the firmware and crashing.
Was there any reason for this to be recursive? Nope.
A simply refactoring and I made it into a for loop. Problem solved.
Recursion just introduces more ways things can screw up. I generally like the idea of it being cautioned against. If you really can't write it resonably in a loop, then go ahead.
Well I'll bite. I think David Frum said it most accurately.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals wonâ(TM)t do"
It applies to most of Trump's 'core issues'. In and of themselves, they're not extreme issues.
Controlling the border
Keeping good jobs in America
These used to be normal bread and butter conversations. It wasn't that long ago, tariffs were just regular policy. So to was controlling immigration numbers. There's nothing crazy or racist or xenophobic about any of it in and of itself.
The problem is that people have been screaming about their issues for decades now and the 'mainstream' political parties have basically ignored it at best. At worst, they've made it horrible to even bring it up (calling someone racist...)
For people on slashdot, it might be the H1B issue. For others, its the border. For others, it's their factory job.
Barring further context, grabbing them by the pussy wasn't exactly non-consensual. It's a complex term these days between explicit consent and implicit or not saying no.
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]â"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything
They let him do it because he is a star.
If you've ever kissed a girl without asking her explicitly 'can I kiss you now?' you've pretty much done what Trump has done.
I completely understand the struggles people who are impacted by a disease and there's a cure out of there, but just costs so much.
At the same time, for all it's flaws in the patent system, in the grand scheme of things... the patent lasts like 5 or 10 or 20 years (I don't know). My point is it's not that long.
Let's remember that the drug wasn't there before. That's the price the society pays for a dynamic drug market.
You invent something; it's prohibitively expensive for a bit, then the price drops.
The alternative is... maybe it's not invented.
The former sadly is easy to rail against. The later is a bit more complex.
I meant to type n (less than or equal to) 0.
Not sure if slashdot escaped it or something.
In any case, yes, the Go API was not the best taking in a signed int when negatives are invalid.
Part of the fault can go to the Go programming language for their API design.
But most of the blame goes to the developers.
I haven't coded in Go, but I googled this quickly.
The Go documentation clearly says it panics if n = 0.
They could have
1. validated their inputs.
2. Handle the panic and assign a default value (I am assuming this is possible in Go. I have never used it)
In the end, it seems like this is just used to distribute requests. Worst case, it should log the error and then assign say the 1st upstream (default value).
But I guess then you're in the exception handling debate on whether you swallow the error and keep going or have your application crash so that you detect the weird condition.
I'm a defensive; keep the system going developer.
But others prefer to be more exact.
I've always had an issue with the idea that software patents are magically different.
In theory, a patent doesn't block an idea, but an implementation. In practice, patents are written as broad as possible to cover as much implementations as possible. In all fields, you are trying to patent an idea that you think is novel.
I like to point to actual 'physical' patents because people tend to idealize them as opposed to software patents.
Let's take something simple, yet very innovative. The coffee cup sleeve... meant to make hot cups easier to hold.
It's best to look at the claims section. Give it a read. It's written very generally and for good reason. If you could bypass the patent by adding a groove to the cardboard or something like that or just using a different material, the patent would be useless. And the coffee cup sleeve is simple, yet definitely novel because we've had cups for a very long time and yet this device did solve a real world problem.
Software patents aren't any different.
Have a look at a 'software' patent. Amazon's one-click patent.
Again read the claims sections. Written just as generally to encompass as much as possible.
If you want to talk about it within a specific implementation. It talks about buttons and shopping cart model... in a similar way that the coffee cup sleeve talks about cups and bands...
I think it's legit to have an issue with our patent system in general.
What I don't understand is the idea that software patents are somehow special. If people think software patents protect ideas instead of implementations, then I think hardware patents do the same in practice.
I've filed a few software patents before and what do you think a person would file a patent for in the case of detecting someone is driving. You probably listed the main ways in a comment on slashdot. You don't think a patent lawyer is going to list all those way in the claims of a patent they're filing? They're going to list all those way in the claims as broadly as possible, so any 'practical' implementation will be patented. No different from a hardware patent.
Just for fun, I found the Apple patent and look at the claims.
Yeop, they patent the major practical motion detection (GPS, celluar, accelorometer...)
There are a few ways this plays out. How do we deal with this. One way is a basic income.
The other less articulated way, but is the basis for a lot of people's views is things simply get cheaper. Deflation is good. You simply live on less. You work less. You earn less. But you can afford the food, water... of life.
Now this is a hard transition in many places. There are loads of things that don't go well with living on less and deflation. Debt, government services, pensions...
I grew up in a third world country. I've been back a few times. You might actually start to see something like this take place in those areas or possibly the southern US. I said MIGHT. Things like renewable energy, easy access to cheap goods...can make it pretty easy to live on even a minimum wage. Now you certainly can't do that in New York or something.
Here's the thing.
First some background. I was born in South Africa and lived under apartheid. I'm a brown person. I'm amply aware of white supremacy and hate it with every inch of my soul. However, I've also seen black supremacy and black nationalism. While white supremacy oppressed us, black supremacy burned down our town. And yeah, I've also seen brown/Islamic supremacy (my own group). Heck, even in the UK, I have Indian Muslim family I visit that gloats how they got together and drove the blacks out of the neighborhood because they bring drugs and prostitution.
I give all that as a background because if you live in any way long enough you quickly realize how every group has an 'alt-right'. This point cannot be overstated enough.
Now when white people were just so damn powerful as it was the 'norm,' yeah we could all just pretend only white people were racist. Or I guess in modern social justice terms... that only white racists matter because only whites have power.
This is some serious bull shit in my view, because all groups have power. I'm in Canada now. I'm Indian. My high school heavily Indian. Yeah, do you think white kids had any power? Nope, they got punked off for being white same as any other people.
This is the point we are in history and why the alt-right is more prevalent. Regular white people are seeing how society is allowing every other gang to arm itself and spread itself to the teeth, while singling our only white people.
Only white people can't be proud of their identity.
Black power... that's a good thing. Not for me. To use modern lingo. I get triggered by black power as rioting black people burned down my home in South Africa in the name of black power.
Indian power... that's a good thing because ethnic people need to have an identity.
women power... that's a good thing.. because...feminism.
These extremist groups really only gain power when regular people starting siding with them. I'm a bit of a realist. I don't pretend we can stamp out all form of hate, but various thing in regular society have people join their 'alt-right' movement and think they are legitimate.
Again I can speak from my own example. Muslim communities are segregationist and racist to any level. You can't be openly gay. Heck, it's really tough to have openly left Islam as I did. I'm still battling through it.
I really and truly don't see any different between white supremacists and muslim supremacists and black supremacists... hate is hate.
The danger we face is that we've empowered and encouraged and turned a blind eye to all the other supremacist groups out there. White people aren't really blind to this and what is natural but to be sympathetic to the people who even have your interest at heart.
Oh I see parallels all over the place. White people might not be part of the alt-right, but they sympathize. The same way most Muslims aren't part of ISIS or radical groups, but they do sympathize. You I attend regular family functions with regular Muslim people and I get to hear wonderful conversation like:
It's sad people got killed over cartoons, but they really shouldn't be speaking about Islam anyways.
I guarantee you there's some white people today going, I'm not for hate or white supremacy, but all I want is for my kids to have an identity they can be proud of or very legitimate issue X,Y,Z.
Basically, of course you're right the alt-right has always been there. The problem is you can't just take this approach to only white people. It's basic group tribal dynamics. And society has changed quite a lot. It's not the 1960s USA where no other group had power, but white people and no other group is filled with hate and a conquest to subjugate and segregate other people.
It's sad to see us a society not really demanding every other alt-right part of society be pushed to non-acceptance as well.
It's also sad that regular white people can't just have a regular white identity and be proud of it.
This is really the case where I have a hard time grasping the test.
It's the automotive sector. Relative to the size of the market, there really aren't that many cars to test.
People are already aware or should be aware that the EPA results don't match to real world driving conditions.
Why not just do what many car magazines or journalists do. Take the car for a test run of mixed highway and city driving and report the results. You can have some baseline weather conditions for the test. You can have some training for the EPA staff to help make sure they drive the same.
Heck, if they want, publish both. The standard EPA test and the test run.
The results would be much more useful regulation.
No skis take rocks like rental skis!