> After getting comfortable reading code with so many parentheses
I never managed to get over the ().
Ruby has a very flexible syntax, compared to many other languages,
in that you can omit syntax in many cases. For instance, using
() for method calls is largely, for the most part, optional. So
when I have the python code:
cat = Cat()
cat.meow()
I find it worse than the ruby code:
cat = Cat.new
cat.meow
(Though you can use () in ruby there too; but most people
won't do so as there is little point in that.)
This is a superficial issue though. Python's biggest mistake
is to require implicit self. It always feels as if I need to
hand-hold python and trying to explain to it what an object
is and what self is. In ruby I don't have that issue. Note
that I find both languages fine, but ruby is "more" object
oriented than python is, for many reasons.
Lisp is quite different though. I had some exposure to it
via scheme and while it can be fun, I feel that lisp is a
worse programming language than either ruby or python. The
old game haxima/nazghul was given up eventually, primarily
due to lack of time, but also because the author was no
longer convinced of scheme (the core of the engine is in
C if I recall correctly). He tried to switch to python,
though, which did not work (but, again, I think it was mostly
due to lack of time). The scheme code in haxima/nazghul
was quite interesting (https://sourceforge.net/projects/nazghul/
if you want to look at the scheme code there), but I much
prefer either ruby or python there. Although it would be
interesting to have DSLs that would really focus on the
game or project at hand, like in the old Zak McKracken game.
Well, once you realise that the so-called "EU parliament" is nothing
but a lobbyist group (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...) it is no longer surprising. To me nothing here is surprising, neither the
hurry nor any slowness.
I can not evaluate the claims made, but even if I am lenient and
assume it is all true, to me it is still strange how a distribution
becomes so dependent on a single person or provider. I can't help
but wonder how other distributions would have handled that; Gentoo
would probably not have ended in a similar situation, debian probably
neither.
And mind you - that's only if I evaluate the claims made at face value.
I also can't help but feel that there are some missing steps here. Sure,
IRC roid-raging happened in the past, see #freenode, and people are strange
in general, but even then it really reads oddly to me, almost as if "I trusted
that scammer from Nigeria with my money because the emails were so convincing".
And, by the way - natural pathogens exist in just about any population. These very, very rarely led to extinction. There is a media trend to claim the mites are at fault. This reminds me of prior fault yielding e. g. "mad cow disease" - and then the media also stopped doing any further investigation at that point. It's as if they have break points where you can not go past those points. Now it is the mites that get blamed.
Voting on hackernews is a bit weird compared to reddit. The whole UI is strange to me.
Having said that, I noticed that there is in general too much content to consistently e. g. vote or do similar actions. I was watching Rossman's video almost daily in the past; stopped doing so a while ago simply because of lack of time on my part. I need to choose more carefully where I invest my time. (Also, for some reason, when Rossman was in New York, his videos had a better punch; not sure if I am the only one noticing this but he seemed to have a better focus when he was still in New York, even though I understand he relocated, to stop getting milked by politicians in New York.)
Good. However had, one question still remains: why did the US government not have this automatically put in place in general? The title refers to one company for the most part. The question is why the US government, which assumingly should work for the people, prioritizes private commercial interests over individual ownership models.
This is a bit skewed. AfD stands for a lot more than "merely" an
opponent of chat control, including worshipping the 1930s era.
As another example, one of their members (Noah Krieger) fights on behalf of Russia, conquering lands
and killing civilians (article from today only in german, sorry:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/videos-mit-schutzweste-u...). And
many other problems I could list about AfD. So t he "they want
to ban those opposing chat control" - sorry, that is a huge
simplification.
> It would be hard to imagine a US party that didn't believe the other party is out of compliance with US values.
Ah? And why are there only two corrupt parties in the USA to begin with?
I mean that's no real choice. Both are corrupt, and one now entered
cult-status with the mad orange king. His cronies get rich. Everyone sees
this. So, sorry, but your attempt to promote the USA while praising the
AfD, is simply flat out rubbish nonsense. We only have bad actors here,
no good ones.
No, I think the term applies very well. That there are worse dictatorships does not really nullify the statement.
Even "democracies" have death penalties and commit to genocide. See the USA as an example here. One can always reason that there are worse countries in this regard - nobody rejects that either.
We need to have a much more nuanced view on democracy. The EU presently is not one.
Europe right now is the ultimate US vasall. Germany is the leader here; France and Netherlands are much more self-conscious but also way too dependent on US corporations. The worst part is that in Germany with Merz in charge, this will not change. He is a good puppy for the USA.