> Please, explain why this is an unreasonable standard?
Because you haven't described a standard, you've asked for "broad, systematic evidence." What exactly constitutes "broad, systematic evidence"? If we were to provide you with, say, 20 instances of left wing discrimination against the right, would you admit you're wrong? How these conversations usually go is you demand evidence, we provide evidence, you say our evidence is invalid and round and round we go.
This is called "bringing dialectic to a rhetorical debate". You're not arguing logic or facts, you're arguing emotions. If I'm wrong on that fact, please, describe an exact standard that would convince you the OP is, in fact, correct.
My grandfather used to say to me "all those books and all you do is eat the pages." He would usually say it after I would overthink something ridiculously simple, like righty tighty lefty loosey. He thought it was good that I went to college, but he would always emphasize that knowing and doing are two different things.
Funny enough, I perpetually use the right-hand-curl rule before tightening or loosening a screw. Point my thumb in the direction I want the part to move, and rotate the tool in whatever direction my fingers point. I get made fun of for it occasionally, but I haven't accidentally tightened something I planned on loosening in a really long time. Thanks electrical engineering and magnetic field/current interactions! You've prevented me from breaking bolts and stripping screws!
Ditto. The left made the personal political, not the right. They're the ones who say we're not allowed to have jobs if we think the wrong thoughts or have the wrong opinions.
Even the worst bible-thumping rednecks I know (many, many cousins of both sides of the family) will agree to disagree and behave in a civil manner in the presence of those with whom they disagree.
When I was living in San Francisco, I've been literally run out of coffee shops, restaurants and parties after the wrong person finds out I'm pro-gun.
> When I was living in San Francisco, I've been literally run out of coffee shops, restaurants and parties after the wrong person finds out I'm pro-gun.
Come to Seattle, in my RPG group we had 2 people conceal carry and visits to the local range are a common activity for all political persuasions.
One night one of my players brought in a collection of knives he'd just purchased. The MtG players next to us did look a bit.... unsettled as we handed around all the various new sharp toys that'd been brought in.
> They're the ones who say we're not allowed to have jobs if we think the wrong thoughts or have the wrong opinions.
I've seen plenty of people on the right proclaim that "all atheists should be removed from the country" or that "if you aren't Christian you are a traitor to the nation."
The people you are complaining about and the people I am complaining about are all authoritarian, that is the problem, not the left/right spread. The people who cause problems are those who think someone should be in charge and be dictating the rules that everyone must follow.
The actual set of rules being dictated is fairly arbitrary.
>Even the worst bible-thumping rednecks I know (many, many cousins of both sides of the family) will agree to disagree and behave in a civil manner in the presence of those with whom they disagree.
You've got to be kidding me. You (and I) are from the land of Jim Crow. My high school's prom was segregated until the late 90's. I worry for the safety of anyone openly gay in my hometown.
Let's just be honest - every classification of people you can think of has their assholes. It's a fact of life, ignore them and move on.
When was the last time a gay in your home town was actually strung up? How about a black man? As a direct contrast, the number of minorities in my little hometown has increased at a startling rate the past 3 years. People mumble and grumble, but none of them would ever consider not hiring one of them because they were black/mexican/democrat.
This is clearly wrong unless you posthumously redefine all right-wing political violence as being leftist.
Though, really, "left" and "right" are useless terms without defining your usage of them beforehand. Rest assured, there are many right-wingers who are all too willing to make the personal political and to stifle dissent. In fact, that's more-or-less a signature distinction of the New Right that emerged around the era of Buckley and National Review.
...Isn't one of the tropes of the left that you can't just reject the experiences of others offhand in such a manner? Maybe the parent has been run out of places when his views were known. Who are you to just reject that and say that's wrong?
> ...Isn't one of the tropes of the left that you can't just reject the experiences of others offhand in such a manner?
The first paragraph, which appeared to be what was rejected, was a generalization, not a recounting of personal experience.
And, nothing in the post you responded to was any kind of rejection that violates any precept that is particularly common, AFAICT, on the left (it might, I suppose, violate a right-wing stereotype of the left, but, then, that's more a problem of the alignment of the stereotype with reality.)
I am not sure how else to interpret a post wherein someone relates something personal and then the first sentence of the follow up tells them they're wrong.
What was called wrong was the generalization about the left which started the post, not the personal experience offered after it. At least, the "unless..." which qualifies the statement about wrongness only makes any sense as a qualifier to a rejection of the generalization, not the specific personal experience story, so there is no other reasonable way to interpret the post.
I don't know, I'm not a leftist. Though what you seem to be describing are postmodernism and moral relativism, and I know plenty of left-wing people who reject both.
Again, the term "left" is useless without defining it first. I have no idea what the hell you actually mean when you say "left".
I'm not going to get bogged down in a "no true scotsman" fallacial argument. People define themselves by these terms and the terms are also widely used. If you can't figure them out, that's on you.
It's not a No True Scotsman when there's inherent vagueness.
People define themselves by these terms and the terms are also widely used. If you can't figure them out, that's on you.
Is that so? Because I've heard definitions of "right" as variously economically liberal, economically protectionist, socially conservative, socially liberal (as in classical liberalism), non-interventionist in foreign policy, interventionist in foreign policy, anti-statist, statist and so forth.
In fact, all of these contradictory views have belonged or continue to belong to various movements categorized as "right-wing".
So I'm asking about what you mean. Or perhaps you don't mean anything and are simply looking for an ax to grind.
> I'd be surprised if they didn't recharge it by pedaling. ;)
I'd be surprised if they did. A dynamo adds a noticeable load on the bike, and the people buying this are already optimising for small improvements. Adding a dynamo to power it would probably be a net negative for performance.
A dynamo doesn't actually add that much load to the bike, but they're heavy and invasive, the exact opposite of what an electronic shifting system aims to be.
I run a dynamo generator for lights on my bike. The datasheet says it steals about 7 watts of power. I'm a relatively weak cyclist, but I can put out 230W continuously for an hour. The dynamo doesn't matter unless you're racing.
That said I still have good-old-classic 10 speed mechanical shifting. It works so well I don't see the need to add another computer-based gadget to my life.
> They should generate power from the motion of the shift levers.
How much power would that really generate? You can't make them too stiff, since part of the reason people like electronic shifting is that it's easy to do when your hands are numb from cold.
Actually no--the Shimano and Campagnolo systems (the first two to market, and the only ones anyone really has yet except some pros) are wired. Look up "Shimano Di2." The battery lasts about 1000 miles before it needs to be recharged, and it can be charged via USB.
To be fair, it's the same as top of the range sports cars having automatic transmissions(like Bugatti Veyron). Top of the range automatics are just faster than any human could possibly be, so they are a natural choice at that level. From what I understand, all professional cyclists use electronic shifters because they are more precise and faster - one click always means one gear, while with a manual sometimes you can miss a gear or jump two at once.
Is it so strange? If their engineering and security are poor, they wouldn't want that fact exposed by somebody outside the company. A reputation for poor engineering is the touch of death for a startup. Especially a bitcoin startup.
One of the benefits of software work is its asynchronous nature[0]. Unfortunately, it requires a certain amount of trust that engineers aren't extended in these days of Scrum micromanagement. If managers could get past that, imagine the possibilities. Engineers could work on your product round the clock. Things would get fixed and progress made while you sleep.
[0]: Hardware isn't software. I can see where that might be an issue.
I'm fortunate enough to have joined a team where this frequently happens. We have people in pacific, eastern, european and antipodean timezones and things often pan out like you describe.
It requires everyone to be both conscious of and conscientious towards other people's working hours, so flexibility is key. People get up early and/or stay up late to attend the (few) regular meetings that we have.
Sometimes I work late on a Thursday to get something reviewed before the reviewer's week ends. Other times I put hours in on a Sunday so that the review can happen before I start work proper on Monday morning.
There is a lot of shared trust required for it to work and I can see that it might not work for every team. But it's definitely working for us.
Ya, I have experienced times where it has worked but I don't remember a time it has worked better than collocating a team. There seem to always be some inefficiencies introduced but it really speaks to the professionalism of the team members when it works
- It used to be that Qt was massive; because it existed before ubiquitous, usable STL implementations, Qt had to essentially also ship its own C++ standard library. Which meant that you couldn't use standard C++ strings, you had to use QString, and so on. This is less true with Qt 4 & 5, but reputations stick around.
- Often-times C++ APIs are a pain, even if you are using C++, many people have the opinion that the API exposed should be C.
STL strings are also next to useless. startsWith(), endsWith(), split(), case-insensitive find, stringify a number, numericify a string, easily construct a formated string, properly handles unicode (wstring does not), all require extra code. QString has a function for each of those.
And the STL data structures are sometimes kind of unwieldy:
if (dict.find(key) != dict.end()) { ... }
is lame compared to the easily understood:
if (dict.contains(key)) { ... }
Not to mention all the stupid inconsistencies:
// std::vector has no sort function, haha!
std::sort(std_vector.begin(), std_vector.end());
// std::sort doesn't work on std::list, haha!
std_list.sort();
And my favorite annoyance, the fact that std::vector::size() returns unsigned int, despite the fact that for practical purposes you aren't going to get anywhere near even 2 billion elements without running out of memory (or other performance problems), so I'm stuck writing
for (unsigned int idx = 0; idx < v.size(); ++idx) {...}
or omitting the "unsigned" and getting lots of compiler warnings. I get why they would have done it; I would have done it too. Until I used Qt, then I like how everything is simply int. I suppose if you are doing physics simulations or something you might need something different, but it's the rare GUI program that needs unsigned int for size.
vector::size() actually returns size_t, which is exactly the right way to go about, because why should a size() function be able to ever return negative numbers?
Good point about size_t, although technically it's std::size_t.
I agree, STL has done the "right" thing with sizes; of course negative sizes are meaningless. The problem is, Qt's way is so much nicer to use, even though it is obviously "wrong." Type three characters, done. Putting "int" in your headers, it's obvious what's going on--you're getting a number back. I suppose std::size_t is obvious, but it's hard to read, and I hate typing underscores. Again, more correct, but I hate doing it, which is just another reason why Qt is such fun to use compare to STL.
Yeah, I know why. Problem is, it is a bad design. I don't work for the API, the API works for me. Conceptually sorting a list is the same as sorting a vector, so it should look the same in the code. The fact that it may require a different algorithm underneath is what the API is there to figure out for me. Other languages and APIs (including Qt) don't have problems like this, hence my complaint.
You're unlikely to have a std::vector containing 2 billion single byte elements however.
Even being conservative, say you had a struct of size 24 bytes (e.g. 3 doubles x, y and z) then now you're up to 48G.
So yes, there are very few situations where you'll have meaningful data that would fill a vector indexed by signed ints without running out of memory first.
Can you imagine how stupid it would feel if you had to abandon all your std::vector-using code the moment you need to deal with an array bigger than 2 billion elements?
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, the only thing you could store in a std::vector indexed by signed ints where you would have a problem would be single bytes.
If you have 2 billion 2 byte elements then that's 4gb which is the total addressable space on a 32-bit system - leaving no room for program code or any other data meaning you couldn't run anything.
You could go 64bit, but then signed ints go up to (2^63)-1 and you have the same problem - elements more than a single byte in size will cause you to run out of addressable memory before you exhaust available signed ints.
Yes, and like a vector containing > 2 billion single byte elements it's still delving in to a very peculiar use case.
Compared to the majority of other uses of std::vector which will never be able to overflow signed ints.
I get from a logical point of view that size() would never be < 0 therefore it makes sense to use an unsigned int, however from a practical point of view it also makes programs more susceptible to a number of pernicious bugs that can catch out unsuspecting programmers, e.g. things like
for ( size_t i = v.size(); i >= 0; --i )
{
...
}
Which would work fine with a signed int, but here it will just loop infinitely.
- I'm in the camp that thinks widget libraries for C++ should be workable in C.
- I'm big on minimalism, and being strongly aware of "90% of programs out there are bloated", and was horrified when I had to install a tiny Qt based program in ubuntu, and it required me to install a gazillion packages that looked like they belonged to Qt. (I don't remember the details).
- I always keep looking for C programs that can do in a couple thousand lines, what takes tens of thousands of non-C code for other programs to accomplish. I'm fairly aligned with the suckless philosophy, although I may not 100% agree with them. (suckless website would give you a good idea of what I'm talking about).
Also not the op, but I personally tend to avoid Qt if I can help it because I prefer to release software under MIT/Apache/BSD style licenses, which is incompatible with GPL style licenses (in that direction), or makes things more complicated at the very least.
As long as you don't use anything derived from QObject, but that pretty much defeats the purpose...
The moc is to effectively extend C++ with signals and slot at a language level. I'm not crazy about the moc, but I love signals and slots. The only alternative is slow-compiling templates like boost signals and slots, which also have less than compelling syntax.
We subconsciously equate size with value. A physical book sitting on a shelf benefits from being (or looking) large, especially if it costs $15. Digital books don't suffer from the misconception and lots of independently written books are shorter than those intended for print. That's my perception, anyway. I'd be curious to see hard numbers comparing book sizes between those intended for print and those that are e-book only.
Nationalism doesn't lead to wars, massacres and other oppression and brutality. That's tribalism leading to that. Tribalism is one of those built in human behaviors we have that we can't get rid of. People have tried with globalism, with cultural marxism, with communism. The pendulum always swings back toward tribalism because genetics is a powerful force. Nations are the people, not the dirt, as is pretty obvious to see after 3 decades of mass immigration.
If you want real danger, you should want to curb and reverse the mass immigration we're still seeing. History is very clear on this point; if immigration continues unabated, eventually the immigrants will become targets. Hopefully it's just expulsion that they're targeted for, but genocide isn't unheard of in these situations.
The meaning of nationalism (and tribalism) is not clearly defined, at least not in this thread. I thought about that as I wrote my comment, but I decided I couldn't cover every contingency ...
Without disputing the definitions, I agree with some aspects of what you say, but I disagree about that there is some inevitable bad ending. Generally, as the U.S. shows, it turns out well.
The U.S. is filled with the descendents of immigrants who think of each other as 'Americans'. Today's nativists are the descendents of immigrants that suffered the same discrimination. A few examples: Ben Franklin (and his peers, AFIAK) openly disparaged German immigrants, Italian and Irish immigrants used to riot against each other ... generations later, does anyone care? I read a study that said by the third generation, 3% of immigrants spoke the language of their former country and 80% married outside their group (I might misremember the stats to a degree).
> The pendulum always swings back toward tribalism because genetics is a powerful force.
I don't think it's tied to genetics. People are tribalistic about all sorts of groups that aren't genetically related to each other, and over time the groupings change. I believe genetic studies show enormous diversity within groups.
"The meaning of nationalism (and tribalism) is not clearly defined"
Wikipedia would have been helpful: "[Nationalism] can be expressed as a belief or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with or becoming attached to one's nation." "Tribalism is [...] a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group."
None of these in itself implies that it also has to bear a negative emotional charge of any kind. I think you're confusing nationalism/tribalism with xenophobia.
> Nationalism doesn't lead to wars, massacres and other oppression and brutality. That's tribalism leading to that.
Could you explain the difference between nationalism and tribalism?
> If you want real danger, you should want to curb and reverse the mass immigration we're still seeing. History is very clear on this point; if immigration continues unabated, eventually the immigrants will become targets. Hopefully it's just expulsion that they're targeted for, but genocide isn't unheard of in these situations.
Are you saying that we should deport the immigrants for their own good?
> Could you explain the difference between nationalism and tribalism?
A tribe could be described as a people of common genetic ancestry. On the occasion they have an ancestral homeland, that's called a Nation. For example, the Germans have Germany, the French have france, etc. If you were to replace the German people with Syrians, for example, the nation of Germany would cease to exist. The Syrians living in Germany have no loyalty to the nation. The loyalty the Germans have for their nation (or their nationalism) is only a function of the fact that Germans live there and they feel that is their home.
> Are you saying that we should deport the immigrants for their own good?
Nothing makes a Tribe feel more fiercely nationalist than a perceived invasion from an outside group. That really triggers the deep seated need we all have to ensure our genes and our race survive. That means expelling the invaders, one way or the other. The Reconquista is a good example of an event that was somewhere in the middle. There were lots of wars, lots of deportations, but not an outright genocide.
> A tribe could be described as a people of common genetic ancestry.
I'd agree that they share an ethnicity (depending on how that's defined!) but I think there is no genetic basis, and that studies have shown great genetic diversity within ethnicities.
There is no real rhyme or reason to how humans group themselves. It's not like they carefully review specifications and test solutions before they choose. It's on an emotional level.
I think doesn't always lead to wars might be more accurate. In history you see Germany at war with France more often than Germanic and Francophone tribal groups sparing.
Evolution is our friend here. Keep non-tribalism more adaptive than tribalism, hold out for a few centuries while rewarding non-tribalism and penalizing tribalism, and the problem will evolve away.
> Now I realize that software is the wrong tool for the job.
tl;dr: most productivity apps are marketed to disorganized people. I say target the already organized and make their lives easier by automating all the things.
For getting lazy or disorganized people organized, yes, that's going to take more than software. But, there may still be a market for taking the result of the manual process (like the one your grandfather uses with ledger books) and digitizing it. For example, "whitelines link" are notebooks that make it easier to digitize written data cleanly by taking a picture of it. Evernote (or any competent OCR program) could then turn that clean digitized version into text. From there, all the data could be organized, broken down by category, etc. You could automatically generate any number of reports based on that information and, most importantly, it's all backed up in case something unfortunate happens to the physical ledger.
Because you haven't described a standard, you've asked for "broad, systematic evidence." What exactly constitutes "broad, systematic evidence"? If we were to provide you with, say, 20 instances of left wing discrimination against the right, would you admit you're wrong? How these conversations usually go is you demand evidence, we provide evidence, you say our evidence is invalid and round and round we go.
This is called "bringing dialectic to a rhetorical debate". You're not arguing logic or facts, you're arguing emotions. If I'm wrong on that fact, please, describe an exact standard that would convince you the OP is, in fact, correct.