I note the rule reminder, but I very respectfully raise one hell of an eyebrow at the implication that discussions about ranking the significance of dead children by skin colour ought to be conducted curiously, dispassionately and substantively.
Haha, I'm not too young for that, but I think that was a fairly fringe use case even then. Most people were never on IRC.
In the late 90s / early 2000s Internet radio would probably have made me think of RealPlayer, and shortly thereafter actual radio stations' own websites with embedded streams. Then I'd think of aggregators like the original iTunes, and now TuneIn.
It appears to take a folder of .opus music files and serve some kind of Opus live stream, and it is controllable via IRC (as in, you can tell it to queue or skip songs over IRC). Or at least that's my best guess based on the linked demo instance.
It would certainly benefit from a single line atop the README that clearly stated what this actually does. I certainly don't think of IRC when I think of Internet radio.
The US attacks on Iran is a different event altogether from the Israeli genocide in Gaza. You're conflating discrete conflicts with different parties and different modes of engagement.
The US attack on that school is atrocious and I condemn it. While possibly a war crime, it does not meet the definition of genocide, unlike Israel's conduct in Gaza, which certainly does. There's no evidence of recent US conduct amounting to genocide (much historical evidence vis-a-vis American Indians though).
To the extent you wish to penalise complicity in genocide, go for it, but I will notice if you're oddly selective in which genocides you apply that standard to, and which you don't. (Which countries traded with Burma during the Rohingya genocide? Do you know? Do you care?)
> brown children
What does the children's colour have to do with anything at all? Do we grade the severity of war crimes by the (perceived? assigned?) race of the victim? Horrific thought.
Russian is a nationality, not a race. You can say prejudiced, but not racist. In this case it's not even a person, but a product.
It's not prejudice when it's based on a post-facto assessment of the Russian government's mobilisation of their companies for obscene and evil goals like clamping down on free speech, persecuting LGBT people, or trying to destroy Ukraine.
"It's Russian and therefore it's out" is a valid stance in light of all the known consequences of using a Russian product. If Russian people do not like this, they are welcome to break their links to the Russian state by emigrating and founding companies elsewhere, or stay and overthrow their government. Either works for me.
Many Russians have learnt to keep quiet about politics so they can get ahead in Russia, and they seem to harbour some deep-seated delusion that everyone from abroad should play along with this for their own convenience and profit. They whisper 'no war' to one another, by which they mean Ukraine should surrender already, so that this whole unpleasantness (to them) blows over, and the rest of the world goes back to accepting their blood money. No.
Germany has been grappling with its own horrific genocide for a hundred years and still hasn't quite figured it out. Russia is, as of the time of writing, currently undertaking one. Come back in a hundred years, maybe we can talk about Russian products then.
The perfect ought not be the enemy of the good - the question isn't whether Wikipedia has solved all prejudice, the question is whether it is doing better on that question than its peers. And I'd say it is, relatively speaking. I'm always happy for it to do better, though.
Spending money to get people into editing Wikipedia that would never otherwise have done so seems like a very worthy goal to me.
Internal DEI initiatives are very helpful for an organisation trying to create a comprehensive knowledge base without falling to any group's bias. That requires diverse perspectives.
I don't care about internal DEI if the job is managing sewerage systems, but this is a perfect example of a context where fostering diverse engagement is both rational and improves the end product.
More broadly, I think it's "let's not hand over essential infrastructure to any foreign state". Friendly or not, it doesn't matter.
Private companies ought to have the freedom to do business with whomever they like, but for essential public services, better to assume essential public infrastructure simply must not be offshored at all.
Any question asked would be edited beyond recognition (and usually into brash rudeness). Half the answers were demanding ever increasing proof of work, and the other half told the OP that they shouldn't even be trying to do what they're doing. The only useful thing were opinion based posts from people with domain expertise, and SO kept trying to ban and remove those. It was the least helpful place online, but the most accessible, and it survived for lack of alternatives.
I'm no AI booster, but answering simple questions about well understood topics is a perfect fit for it. Good riddance to StackOverflow.
Perhaps it would help if stdlibs were be versioned, with the chosen version declared in the project file. For existing languages, a lack of version would simply indicate the original stdlib, meaning nothing should break.
I definitely don't think stdlibs should be changed often, but it seems fairly damaging to a language when things may be added to a stdlib but never removed, no matter how broken or misconceived (see C++).
Rust is a great language, but the poor stdlib + overreliance on crates + explosion of unvetted transient dependencies makes it a hard sell for a lot of projects.
No no, dead earnest. I'm a big believer in honest compliments, where merited.
Please start writing a blog, if you don't already. If I could compose a blog roll of people writing fun CS histories, I would replace my HN bookmark with it.
Having reviewed as instructed, I stand by everything I said here. Let's review the action replay.
I began by noting that TS has literals and set theoretic types, and that this makes sense for a post-facto type system bolted on top of a dynamic language. Jaen showed up to inform me that TS has literals and set theoretic types, implying he hadn't read my post.
I noted that typed string literals are not generally considered desirable within strictly typed environments. "Parse, don't validate", etc. Jaen seemed to follow this up by aggressively trying to prove that TS is somehow "better" than Haskell. His arguments comprised the fact that TS has literals and set theoretic types (again, yes, this was is in my initial post), and a mixture of personal insults and just straight up nonsense (I wasn't the one to bring Zod into a discussion of type systems... ). At that point I did have a little fun with things, since it had become clear Jaen was not a constructive or good faith interlocutor.
Jaen's central misapprehensions seem to be that (a) I don't understand literals and set theoretic types, despite this whole thread being in reply to a post where I give examples of them in TS; and (b) that I care which type system is "better".
As I repeated a number of times above, TS' type system makes sense for a type system bolted onto a dynamic language. It's extremely useful when the underlying language has oodles of untyped structs flying every which way. Conversely, Haskell's type system makes sense within a holistic strictly typed environment. Structural typing would be a gaping hole in Haskell's strict type safety, which is kind of Haskell's whole thing. Neither system is better, each has its use. Different strokes for different folks.
I don't usually put much stock in upvotes, but I do note I seem to have the edge there. Seems that our esteemed panel of armchair referees respectfully dissent from your narrative, nvlled. :)
It's not. The US green card process takes years, and being forced to be outside the country while the process is ongoing makes it very hard to continue working for a US employer, which is how most people are actually sponsored for a GC in the first place.
If you're looking for some objective rationale for this change, you're not going to find one. This is simply designed to make GCs much, much harder to get and dissuade prospective immigrants. That's the only goal.