Yea, because the moderator is an asshole with a power trip who thinks everyone should be pussies like he is and never have a human moment. Yea I know I'm shadowbanned, but some people do show dead.
125 connections per second is vastly more than most business applications will ever see in their entire lifetimes. That means this approach is viable most of the time for most of the things people write.
Everyone likes to think they're the next big unicorn and code for it; you're wasting your time, you're not.
> If your app is non trivial (lets say a websocket based chat server that needs to persist messages to a DB and use pubsub to sync them to other processes) it probably needs a connection to a database, a connection to a cache server like Redis or Memcached, etc
All things that are already generally connection pooled so this point is moot.
> On the other hand a Node.js or Go program can have a preestablished pool of keep alive connections to the backends already ready to go
Which has nothing remotely to do with why they scale. Also so can the forking process, it can quite easily even have a pool of preforked workers ready to go and handle requests to avoid the cost of the fork.
None of the things you've said have anything to do with why Node and Go are more scalable than a forking server. The issue is ram, not the price of setting up connections; processes are much heavier on ram and limit your number of concurrent clients, Node and Go are event driven single process apps that scale better because they consume less resources, not because of all that other stuff you said.
I don't think you really understand what you're saying or you're comparing apples and oranges and don't know it.
> Tariffs help US businesses and american workers. It's why the first major act of congress was a tariff.
Tarrifs are taxes on US businesses and american workers, no it doesn't help them, it makes everything more expensive for everyone.
The only valid use case for a tarrif is to subsidize and maintain a local industry that is critical to national defense that we can't let be run out of business by cheaper foreign goods.
I think you're being a bit literal, fake news is just a modern name for propaganda and you can do it without lying simply by not telling the whole truth to mislead people. Misleading biased news is fake news even if no facts are wrong if they've clearly left out relevant and necessary facts that don't support the agenda.
And you've utterly missed the point. His version is better than your suggestion, it's cleaner and more readable and built from simpler parts. Banging grep and sed together is far more common than digging into awk.
> The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted.
Incorrect. That's a valid position, it's certainly not the only one.
> the carb-dependent metabolism they end up with by the time they reach adulthood will most certainly complicate their ability to make healthy choices.
Nonsense, your metabolism is not set in stone, they can simply change their diets and if they don't, no one is to blame but them for their continued unhealthiness.
> Why do you hold a different position regarding sugar?
Sugar isn't remotely comparable to those two; they're restricted to minors because they're lethal drugs, sugar is not.
> If he understands it then why does he think it's "odd" for her to have a white male husband?
It's odd for someone to be racist against whites when they're married to one; whining about white privilege _is racism_. Hating on whites is racism. Judging individuals by the color of their skin, and claiming they have privilege because of it, is racism.
> When you're talking about abusive behavior online, and you describe the individuals that leveled the most abusive behavior at you, that's not "whining" or "racist".
They weren't online, they were in a classroom, his teacher chose an extremely left TED talk by a women whining about white privilege because she'd been abused by bad men. They didn't abuse her because they're white, but because they're abusers. Blaming white privilege for their behavior most certainly is racism.
> I'm happy to call it "majority privilege" if you want. I'm not sure how you think it's not a bad thing for certain races to get treated better than others, though. (Different ones depending on what area you're in.)
It's not a bad thing for the majority to be what society optimizes for; it's not privilege, it's how cultures work.
> What beliefs?
Your belief in "white privilege".
> "The story had to have some kind of genders for the characters"? "It's not a horrible choice to pick the most common genders involved in adult sexual abuse[0]"? "It's possible to design a character with non-political motives"?
Making your students write a story about a man trying to rape a woman is an unnecessary vulgarity in a writing class, it's nothing more than the teacher trying to impose her left'y political views about white privilege onto students. There's a thousand other less political things they could have been asked to write about that were serve the goal of learning to write just as well.
Look in the mirror, running around calling people juvenile is juvenile.
I understand addiction just fine, addictions can be broken: that is a fact; you can break your body of any such dependency and that you can, means it's your responsibility to do so and thus your fault if you remain addicted. I understand addiction, you don't understand that we don't all then conclude from that that one has no culpability. Other people have different moral reasoning than you do, that they disagree with you about something does not mean it's because they don't understand it.
You are responsible for what you eat, you are responsible for breaking your own addictions. Pointing the finger at sugar sellers is just a way to wallow in the avoidance of accepting responsibility for yourself.
Want to break a sugar addiction, stop eating, fast until you've broken all food addictions and shed much of the stored calories, and then build up a better diet when you start eating again.
> This implies you don't understand what privilege is. It's very literal. There is no blame in having it. It's not an "us vs. them" thing.
And that implies you don't allow for those who reject the very political and racist concept of white privilege to reject this presupposition. It's not a matter of "understanding"; he's not failing to understand privilege, he's rejecting it and thus doesn't like her pushing those politics on him.
> So?
So he doesn't want to hear her whining about how white men are to blame for bad things that happened to her because he probably doesn't like listening to racist drivel.
> Partially sounds fair if they did a lot of it. What's the problem?
The problem is such thinking is fallacious. Just because bad things happened to her, and white men did it, in no way implies they did it because they're white. They probably all had hair to, does she blame all men with hair? Or to put it more scientifically, correlation isn't caution. What people call white privilege, generally isn't; usually it's just majority privilege which has nothing to do with whiteness and more importantly is not a bad thing at all.
> That's political?
Yes, it was; you don't think it was because you don't accept your own beliefs as political beliefs but rather as reality.
That something is addictive doesn't absolve you of accountability; you still got addicted to it, you allowed it to happen, you are still responsible for yourself no matter the biology of how the effects work. With very very few exceptions, people are fat because they eat too much food, it's as simple as that. If you overeat (as an adult), you are to blame, it's not anyone else's fault. I agree with the OP.