I’m of libertarian persuasion but it has to be noted that periods of human history where one faction was souvereign over it’s dominion, were generally more peaceful and conducive to trade and human cooperation.
Empirialism, dispite all of it’s atrocities, have resulted in more stable and peaceful periods during which cultural and technological progress is made.
Personally, I believe it might be better to have a single source of coercion, which is transparent and democratically scrutinized, than to have those dispersed in order to diffuse influence. Many nowadays will argue for more distributed government, taking hints from the apparent successes of “coopetition” in the marketplace. But that space was carefully constructed over millenia of trail and error by governing bureaucracies. It works well because there’s a leviathan that took away every individual’s opportunity for coercive action AND instituted a justice system to distribute justice in a controlled fashion. It also enforces property rights so you don’t end up with robberies out of spite. Without it you get people distributing justice among themselves, resulting in bloody family feuds and cycles of revenge killings.
I feel people arguing for anarchism (and I like anarchism in theory) typically do not seem to appreciate just how violent most of human history has been before highly centralized state and justice systems.
I’m not even sure competence is the right term here. People have different inate characters which will trust them into different positions. There’s also plenty of incompetence by a good portion of those at the top of hierarchies. Those usually do not get replaced because of network effects, parasitism, coercion, etc.
I read it as an evolutionary biology/psychology explaination for much of human political sentiment. It’s well established that hunter gatherer tribes (the predominant mode during most of human evolution) are very egalitarian.
I expect this would be the case with alpha compositing at least...
Afaict subpixel rendering is supersampling width with multiples of 3, then modulo via the horizontal coordinate into rgb triplets and divide by supersampling factor. I guess if kerning and position are also subpixel it might become more tricky to cache results efficiently.
The more frameworks, the more there are to learn. The more effort required to learn all frameworks, the more appealing it becomes to roll your own.
(The combination of choice paralysis and opportunity cost analysis are a powerful motivator, especially when one comes to the budding realization that even the mightiest frameworks are full of irks. More fun in being a total NIH control freak.)
When I open this page on my phone I am greeted with a privacy modal that blocks the entire screen, with a consent button below the fold, which I cannot reach because scrolling appears busted. (Mobile Safari)
The older I get the more I appreceate that passage from Keynes.
Most annoying brain virus at the moment are the walking libertarian cuckoo clocks that appear to have infested every online comment section. The contemporary version of the new age hippy marxism of the sixties and seventies, just on the opposite side of the spectrum. Much like the Marxists, they’re completely impervious to the facts, and you’ll get the exact same excuses (“that’s not real capitalism!”). And then there’s blank slatist culture warriors vs biological determinists, techno utopians vs climate defeatists, ...
It would certainly be good for the planet, but since petroleum is an input early in the production chain, that would cause price inflation, resulting in higher costs and lower demand, e.g. 70’s stagflation. Also black markets and resource contention.
It doesn't fully offset it. Avoiding debt by not investing leads to lower future growth prospects, resulting in opportunity loss. Debt is contractual and can be restructured.
Try to understand their point of view. Maybe he/she hates your guts, but I doubt it.
I’d ask something like:
“I’m certain you have your reasons about not wanting me to attend the conference, but they aren’t clear to me. I have the best interests of the company in mind, but from my point of view this feels like a unduly limitation of my personal liberty. I do understand there’s not always the time or energy to explain yourself to those you manage, and I don’t want to question your decisions. But I wish you would explain your reasoning about why you feel I should not attend the conference. And maybe see if there is a possibility of a compromise? I hope you try to understand my point of view here, I do not want any sour feelings to develop between us.“
Also, give people time to change their minds. Just gently asking a few times a couple of times in advance, preferably during downtime or when your manager is in a relaxed state if mind. It might help them reconsider the idea, even if it feels like nagging. Just be wary that you don’t come off as “not listening” or questioning their authority. If you manager is really difficult you could ask a superior, but be very careful, you can be certain they won’t like you going behind their back.
Not sure why sans-serif minimalism should be considered soulless. I don't think I'll ever tire of solid no-nonsense Swiss design, but variety is the spice of life for sure.
Forced OOP model [1], lack of types, highly redundant syntax (ES6 whyyyy). After years I’m still fighting with the language, not to mention the browser with it’s frankensteinian api.
Browsers should have just created a Lua dialect, which is like a more sane version of JS, and throw JS back into the nineties-fads hellscape that spawned it. Perhaps in an alternate dimension Eich will have done a non experimental port of Scheme or would just have done WASM from the start.
I’m pretty sure at least there every PC would just boot into Netscape by now.
It’s true that the infrastructure around JS has gotten a lot better, but that’s despite the language. If anything I should thank it for popularizing FP which will hopefully eventually slay the chimera that is OOP.
[1] Or, more specifically, “POOP” to emphasise its prototypical nature.
Empirialism, dispite all of it’s atrocities, have resulted in more stable and peaceful periods during which cultural and technological progress is made.
Personally, I believe it might be better to have a single source of coercion, which is transparent and democratically scrutinized, than to have those dispersed in order to diffuse influence. Many nowadays will argue for more distributed government, taking hints from the apparent successes of “coopetition” in the marketplace. But that space was carefully constructed over millenia of trail and error by governing bureaucracies. It works well because there’s a leviathan that took away every individual’s opportunity for coercive action AND instituted a justice system to distribute justice in a controlled fashion. It also enforces property rights so you don’t end up with robberies out of spite. Without it you get people distributing justice among themselves, resulting in bloody family feuds and cycles of revenge killings.
I feel people arguing for anarchism (and I like anarchism in theory) typically do not seem to appreciate just how violent most of human history has been before highly centralized state and justice systems.