These are good examples of TV pushing the envelope on societal norms, but if you are discussing "pushing a political view", they rank far below "Trek's first interracial kiss".
> A key difference here is you are citing one episode.
That's true, but...
> These shows we are discussing are entirely centered around modern IDPol issues. It's rammed down our throats through every episode.
I have not seen the new shows. I liked reconnecting with old characters in the first few episodes of Picard S1, but didn't even finish the first season.
So I can't comment on those specifically.
But, I can comment on this:
> I know when I can no longer enjoy a show because it's creators are ripping me out of the experience and away from the fictional setting
This is the EXACT SAME COMPLAINT that the people who were upset about Star Trek in the 60s had.
And it extended a lot farther than the interracial kiss. That's just a very easy and obvious landmark example to point out.
Star Trek first aired in 1966. Less than 10 years after crowds of people were held back by the National Guard, but still managed to throw rocks at and spit on little girls because of forced integration in schools.
Star Trek had a multiracial and flamboyant cast, and was frequently communicating messaging about being non-prejudiced, when the Civil Rights Act had just passed.
Trek also frequently communicated messaging about being non-interventionist and only using violence as a last resort, while the Vietnam War was ongoing and a hot-button political issue.
These were ABSOLUTELY complained about as "woke propaganda" (though not in those terms) by the conservatives of the time.
> Again, I never said anything about race or gender.
I never said that you did. But you did propose, and you continue to double down on, the idea that the original Star Trek was not very political.
> They had politics, yes. But not anywhere to the point to breaking the audience out of escapism and mapping their politics to the politics of the time.
Yes, the interracial kiss was VERY MUCH the politics of the time. That's why it was the FIRST interracial kiss on network television, nearly 40 years after TV networks came about. That's why it was protested/banned and the episode not shown in Southern markets.
Can you give any examples of network TV that were more political than Trek?
You’re really displaying some ignorance here. Star Trek has always has a political slant.
The basic premise is about a bunch of people living in a progressive sci-fi utopia with UBI.
The show is constantly preaching unity and openness.
It is explicitly anti-Fascist in many episodes.
It has a multiracial cast with a flamboyant “closeted” gay actor.
And most importantly, it famously had the first interracial kiss on television. The show was banned (or, more minorly, the specific episode was banned) in several places in the South because of that.
> Virtual dispatch absolutely has an overhead, but absolutely nobody in their right mind should be using COM interfaces in a critical section of code.
I could definitely be wrong, but I think C++ style "virtual dispatch" (ie, following two pointers instead of one to get to your function) doesn't really cost anything anymore, except for the extra pointers taking up cache space.
Don't all of the Windows DirectX gaming interfaces use COM? And isn't AAA gaming performance critical?
Everyone gets to choose which language they use for their personal projects.
Where are all the Racket personal projects?
N.B. I say this as someone who personally contributed small fixes to Racket in the 90s (when it was called mzscheme) and 00s (when it was called PLT-Scheme).
The single word "opinion" is not an answer to the question I asked.
> Another example: ... "Yanny or Laurel"
This is not remotely the same thing.
> I can understand how someone hears "Yanny">
So can everybody else. Everyone I have heard speak on this topic has the same exact experience. Everyone "hears" one of the words 'naturally', but can easily understand how someone else could hear the other word, because the audio clip is so ambiguous.
An ambiguous audio recording, which basically everyone agrees can be interpreted multiple ways, which wikipedia explicitly documents as being ambiguous, is very different from meanings of the words "yes", "no", and "believe".
These words have concrete meanings.
You wouldn't say that "you believe the recording says Laurel". You say "I hear Laurel, but I can understand how someone else hears Yanny".
> Is AI conscious? I believe "yes" [...] and in a way that somehow means I don't think anyone who believes "no" is wrong.
What does it even mean to "believe the answer is yes", but "in a way that somehow means" the direct contradiction of that is not wrong?
Do "believe", "yes", and "no" have definitions?
...
This rhetorical device sucks and gets used WAY too often.
"Does Foo have the Bar quality?"
"Yes, but first understand that when everyone else talks about Bar, I am actually talking about Baz, or maybe I'm talking about something else entirely that even I can't nail down. Oh, and also, when I say Yes, it does not mean the opposite of No. So, good luck figuring out whatever I'm trying to say."
This sounds like it should be true, but from life experience, I don't really think it is.
It would be rational for things to work that way, but personalities and emotions are not very rational.
There are some people who seem like they have everything in life going for them, and they're still pessimists, their narrative of the world is petty and ugly, or cruel.
Conversely, there are other people who have suffered tragedies that I might consider literally unbearable (i.e. suicide-worthy), and they are still optimists.
I think these are more fundamental personality traits.
You can see it in siblings that grow up in essentially identical conditions, but one has a "sunny disposition" and another is anxious and worried.
The article mentions that the main pumping unit could draw water from 8 hydrants at once. So 7000 ft of total hose to get to 8 hydrants sounds like it makes sense.
I wonder if maybe it can't even use hydrants that are too near each other in the plumbing graph.
What kind of purity test bullshit rhetoric are you using here?
Whenever you find yourself saying, “you need to explain yourself”, step back and question things.
Have you tried reading the thread instead of jumping on a guy for wrongspeak?
The Soviet connection is really not that hard to follow. They were discussing development cycles. Whether China, which is a communist country with a “5 year economic plan”, is successful due to that 5 year plan.
So it’s very relevant to mention the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a communist country, it “invented” the 5 year economic plan, and it failed spectacularly.
Every command that you issue to the ssd returns a response. It would be nice to have a bunch of performance counters that tell us where the time went with each of the commands we give it.
You're using hydrogen in a balloon. Where its very low density is a boon.
Hydrogen gas also has very low energy density. To store enough of it to be useful, it has to be pressurized/liquified, which requires the expensive storage solutions.
But we know, with absolute certainty, from the Dominion lawsuit subpoenas, that Tucker Carlson was privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.
His private texts include, "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait.”
And
"I hate him passionately. ... I can't handle much more of this”.
Now it's nearly 20 years later, and I just turned 48.
My vision has deteriorated from "old age" enough now that I might have considered getting the procedure done again. Touch-ups are/were free at the Stanford clinic.
My vision has not deteriorated in the past 5 years or so, I am farsighted enough now that it is more comfortable to hold fine print things at arms length to read. And things far away are a bit blurry again.
But, I now think that getting eye surgery now to fix your vision is a bad move if glasses can correct it.
It's really just a strategy decision in the 'game of life'.
"Pretty soon", we are going to have wearable AR goggles that actually work.
When that threshold is crossed, "everyone" is going to have AR glasses, just like "everyone" has a smart phone right now.
Since you're going to be wearing glasses in a few years anyway, why risk the surgery?
You’ll get some eye rolls from people when you bring that up for Sally.
But there are several names that used to be considered male but are now female, like Leslie and Marion. I don’t think I’ve ever met a man name Marion, but you still occasionally run into a Leslie.
It would be interesting to start using Leslie for this little logic puzzle and see how that affects people’s answers.
> ”Open Source" was created to be corporate-friendly as it was predated by Free software, which is rigidly committed to users freedom.
Rigidly committed to a certain interpretation of users freedom. And that interpretation happens to involve removing a number of freedoms “for your own good”.
It is more correct to say that the GPL was created to be anti-corporate, as it was predated by both the MIT and BSD licenses, which are more free, both for users and corporations, which the FSF finds intolerable.
These are good examples of TV pushing the envelope on societal norms, but if you are discussing "pushing a political view", they rank far below "Trek's first interracial kiss".
> A key difference here is you are citing one episode.
That's true, but...
> These shows we are discussing are entirely centered around modern IDPol issues. It's rammed down our throats through every episode.
I have not seen the new shows. I liked reconnecting with old characters in the first few episodes of Picard S1, but didn't even finish the first season.
So I can't comment on those specifically.
But, I can comment on this:
> I know when I can no longer enjoy a show because it's creators are ripping me out of the experience and away from the fictional setting
This is the EXACT SAME COMPLAINT that the people who were upset about Star Trek in the 60s had.
And it extended a lot farther than the interracial kiss. That's just a very easy and obvious landmark example to point out.
Star Trek first aired in 1966. Less than 10 years after crowds of people were held back by the National Guard, but still managed to throw rocks at and spit on little girls because of forced integration in schools.
Star Trek had a multiracial and flamboyant cast, and was frequently communicating messaging about being non-prejudiced, when the Civil Rights Act had just passed.
Trek also frequently communicated messaging about being non-interventionist and only using violence as a last resort, while the Vietnam War was ongoing and a hot-button political issue.
These were ABSOLUTELY complained about as "woke propaganda" (though not in those terms) by the conservatives of the time.