> homeless people [...] are just more visible in the bay area due to lax rules for them
I'm not normally someone who picks on phrasing, but this one is a little orwellian. The implication is that, while homelessness is endemic basically everywhere, the proper "rules" for them to obey are that they are not to be seen. And enforcement regimes that allow them to exist in public are "lax"?
> I haven't seen the other tropes you've mentioned though.
It doesn't strike you as odd that in this whole enormous controversy which has consumed right wing media all week and driven this thousand+ comment thread to the top of HN...
... that no one thought to show you the actual artwork in question, and that you never looked it up for yourself?
I'm going to challenge this. Anecdata may be what it is, but I've never seen any popular artwork from any east asian culture that embraces the slanted eye representation. It just doesn't happen. Asian cultures draw asian people as... people.
The kind of ridiculous physical caricature we see in this kind of artwork (slanted eyes and buck teeth on asians, long arms, huge lips and a completely non-representative chimpanzee circle around the mouth on africans, etc...) only makes sense when viewed from outside, in the "look at these strange and alien people" sense. No one drawing themself reaches for tropes like this.
> People need to realize that the World is messy, and racism and prejudice exits in all walks of life
Yes, they do! I was explaining just this to my kids yesterday, in the context of this very controversy. I don't understand why you think I should have read them those particular books to them when they were toddlers. Seriously, that stuff is pretty vile.
To be genuinely fair, the six books we're actually talking about are minor works that no one reads to kids anymore. We're not talking about Green Eggs or the Lorax here.
Even absent any controversy about racially insensitive artwork (I mean seriously: there are africans drawn as half-monkeys and a chinese man whose eyes are slanted lines! This is not stuff modern kids should be presented with), these definitely aren't "classics".
But as far as a place to find them for adults who want to read them, that will curate them for posterity: have you tried the library?
I still think you're missing the point. GCC indeed didn't invent "inline assembly as a string", no.
GCC invented "constraint metalanguage as the foundation for inline assembly generation", which is the model here that enables one compiler and one syntax to work the same way for basically every architecture over decades. Modelling the interior of the assembly code as a black box (which in this implementation means "string") is just a side effect of this important design choice.
Again, the stuff you're imagining isn't a general purpose assembly language model, it's an x86-specific hack that works only on the specific compilers and architectures for which it was targeted.
It's not "PC based" that's the magic you want, it's the assumption of x86 (and, very recently, sorta, ARM, in a few compilers).
Architectures are weird, assembly is crazy. There just isn't going to be a single set of semantics around what you want.
This Rust thing isn't revolutionary, it's indeed just a prettier way of writing the model GCC invented a few decades back:
+ "Assembly" is a black box for the code author.
+ The compiler's job is generating code around the assembly, not the code itself.
+ So the fundamental model is "constraints": the rules the compiler needs to follow before and after the assembly, and how to emit an appropriate string to represent the register/address/immediate/whatever requested by the assembly code.
And like it or not, this works. It works really well. Generations of OSes have been written in this model without much complaint (beyond the general ugliness of the gcc syntax, which Rust is trying to fix).
I think this is fine. I agree it's not going to bring a revolution, but we really don't want one in this space.
Not even them. Amazon and Grubhub sell "physical services" and seem to be doing great.
I don't know that this is so mysterious at all: Uber and Airbnb sold transportation and travel, which are two segments disproportionately affected by the pandemic.
It has nothing to do with their "Unicorn" status at all. Uber is suffering for the same reason taxi cabs are. Hotels are getting pinched along with Airbnb. But taxis and hotels suffer in traditional ways, whereas startups show up on HN. But there's no "startupness" to this analysis at all.
This is very wrong, to the point of being deliberately misleading:
> Assume you take the app out grocery shopping with you and it subsequently alerts you of a contact. What should you do? It's not accurate enough for you to quarantine yourself for two weeks. And without ubiquitous, cheap, fast, and accurate testing, you can't confirm the app's diagnosis. So the alert is useless.
YES, of course we need pervasive testing. Everyone knows we need pervasive testing. That's why it's called a "test and trace" regime! We don't have it, and that's a major problem. But we know we have to get there.
And once we do, the alert isn't useless anymore.
Tracing is one requirement of a successful mitigation strategy. Testing is the other. We need both. Having one side refuse to cooperate because they don't think the other will is just a recipe for disaster.
I mean, imagine if the medical community started refusing to do tests because they thought the privacy folks would block attempts at tracing. That's what this logic amounts to.
I'm not normally someone who picks on phrasing, but this one is a little orwellian. The implication is that, while homelessness is endemic basically everywhere, the proper "rules" for them to obey are that they are not to be seen. And enforcement regimes that allow them to exist in public are "lax"?
Yikes.