The first step in solving our problems, political or otherwise, is being honest about them. No matter where on the political spectrum you fall, every voting American knows that one side has pushed the idea that climate change is a hoax while the other has been trying to take action.
I’m not sure what the motivation of your question is. Proving that democrats have attempted action while the republicans have chosen to ignore science, is such low hanging fruit that I’m a bit baffled.
> NYC was crippled by Sandy, and that didn’t lead to any changes.
This is what I was referring to. Would the Democrats have implemented more hurricane protections?
I don't think either party has any sort of sane carbon-reducing policy. The Republicans are obviously insane, but the Democrats seem to be focused more on attacking politically charged targets than on actually getting things done. You say they've "attempted" action - I'd say they've implemented things that are more virtue signaling than effective. (plastic bag bans, straw bans... These are not the actions of someone who cares about the environment more than political point-scoring)
Discussing improved hurricane protections is shifting the conversation to addressing symptoms rather than root causes. The conversation thread starts with the assertion that the US will be unable to take climate change seriously until a major city is lost.
While you make fair points, you're not disagreeing with general trends. Democrats have made moves to address emissions, while Republicans are struggling to admit there is even a problem. We do live in a Democracy, and politicians do have to work within the reality of what can be passed. The general public is the problem. Until the public has a strong appetite for addressing climate change, no meaningful change will happen. Any leader making bold moves prior to that is just going to be voted out. The scary conclusion at the root of this thread is that the public will lack that will until a major city is lost.
Hurricanes are not symptoms of climate change. At least, not empirically validated symptoms.
“We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is
not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic.”
Critiques like this are utterly unhelpful. If you truly believe the Republicans are insane then try turning your efforts to neutralizing them instead of wagging your finger at the people making an effort to improve things, however inadequate. They're working on small things both to raise public awareness and because that's all that's possible while the other major party is detached from reality but still wields most of the power at the national level. You don't have much political capital to make a difference as an individual (like most of us) so complaining about limited progress is a net negative.
I’m not making any claims about function overloading in general. Only C#.
It interacts in surprisingly complicated ways with a surprising number of other parts of the language. It causes problems with prospective new features. IIRC there have been a number of bugs in the spec and in the compiler wrt overloading. Given the overall high level of expertise of people working on the spec I would say it’s a bit of a minefield, compared to the rest of the language.
“Overload resolution is the nexus that every feature ends up contributing to. […] All of these things make overload resolution and type interface really really really complex and it’s always a bit of the C# specification that I found hardest to understand […] and it turns out so did the spec designers, because they got it wrong, and we’ve been trying to fix it.”
It might be tricky from a standards point of view, but as a user of the language, I don't think I've ever had an issue with how it handles overload resolution. Every once in a while you get an "call is ambiguous" compiler error, but I've always found the "ambiguity" to be reasonable and easy enough to fix (by making generics explicit or using an explicit cast). It's also a very minor bummer that you can't overload on return type, but that is A LOT to ask of a language.
Generally speaking, I've found C# to be a very pleasant language to work in, by far my favorite in that particular "lane" of computer languages (i.e. annoyingly object-oriented enterprise languages, like C#, Java or C++).
Over the last couple years Google has acted like a dictator on the web. No more autoplay... except if you're Youtube, or these 100 approved sites. If you use Chrome... oh now you're auto signed in. You opt out of location tracking - we'll still track you, we don't care.
Don't give Google more power.
Implementing your website in AMP is basically handing the keys of the web over to Google. They're going to make it more and more ridiculous to stay AMP-compliant and you're going to be shut out if you don't play their game. Eventually they'll enable/disable features of AMP-based sites arbitrarily... similar to how they determine autoplay policy on their "approved sites list." Do you think Google should be the all-powerful being that determines what features you can have on your website? That's the future you're opting into if you implement AMP.
I'm from this area of Kentucky and the fact that it went for Trump has everything to do with the subject.
I'm 36 now, and coal has been in decline for almost my entire life. Yet the area cannot move beyond it because they keep waiting for 'coal to come back'. Politicians come and lie, and say they will return them to the glory days of coal. Trump came and told the most brazen, unrealistic lies of any previous politician. And so the state went for Trump.
Coal isn't coming back, and Appalachia cannot accept this. Until they can accept this and move on, Appalachia will always be impoverished. Sure the rest of the country is having economic boom times, but Trump made Kentucky worse.
Unemployment rates and total laborforce are at lows and highs respectively since 2000 in Kentucky as of the latest bls data (look at the graph since 2000). Nonfarm wage and salary metrics are at all time record highs in Kentucky. The data suggests contrary, you may have a promising career at the NYT.
There's something you don't understand about Kentucky: The huge economic divide between Eastern Kentucky (Appalachia) and the rest of the state. Appalachia clings to being a coal based economy, and it's been failing them for decades now. According to the state Government, as of August 2018 the unemployment rate for Eastern Kentucky is much higher than the national average at 7.8%: https://kystats.ky.gov/kylmi/index/
Taking the state wide average masks how bad things are in Appalachia. Eastern Kentucky cannot catch up to the rest of the state until politicians stop lying to them and lay bare the sobering reality: Coal isn't coming back.
It sounds like you really just disagree with the example given, not necessarily the rule itself. You're arguing that `isAdmin()` might require a different implementation in a difference scenario, but you have not made a case that the string "admin" should not be constant or enum.
I honestly cannot think of a reasonable argument for why constant values should not be in static constants or enums. For one, why would you want to re-type the value over and over? And two, it only takes one typo in one manually typed value to introduce a frustrating bug! It's such an easy bug to avoid and costs almost zero to do correctly! Honestly, devs manually typing values that are effectively consts is one of my biggest pet peeves, you're just creating easily avoidable problems for yourself and your team :).
I'm actually arguing that we should not be focused on nitpicking the details, and instead appreciating the effort taken to think things through, and supporting the idea of using the article as a springboard for our own improvements.
I can understand why you say Three-Body has a rather traditional solution, but I would argue said solution is misdirection. The first book is really just setting up the real meat of the story, in the 2nd and 3rd books.
Invading our Solar System was worth the risk for Tri-Solaris. Because of the Dark Forest nature of the universe they could not just pick a star where they thought there was no life, as life there could just be especially good at hiding. When they found earth they found a luxurious planet containing a race which was ignorant of the true state of the universe and technologically incapable of doing anything about it anyway. On top of all of this, our solar system was very close by :). Their own star system was hellish compared to ours, they needed to leave.
The final book in the series does a good job showing why Earth was a good option for them. Tri-Solarians knew far more about Earth than they could reliably determine about most nearby star systems.
If you're afraid that a planet will have life, then why choose a planet where you are sure there is life?
They were betting their existence on a species they knew already uses MAD as a basis for its' survival not figuring out that it could use MAD to defend themselves.
Their system was interesting, but ultimately not much worse than ours, once you leave the planet. And they have to leave the planet anyway.
Once you have nanomaterials allowing cheap access to space - putting your population in space habitats is cheap and easy. We could do it now, if we had space elevator. The cost of materials and energy is negligible compared to invasion of another star system. Especially with such conveniently storeable population :)
> Tri-Solarians knew far more about Earth than they could reliably determine about most nearby star systems.
There's nothing stopping them from figuring it out. You don't have to invade a system, you can send a stealthy probe. I would assume in their circumstances it would be a wise thing to do if they really don't want to live in space further away from the center of gravity of their star system.
Besides, if the dark forest is so important - why invade Earth at all and play with fire? You can kill everybody on Earth without bothering to show up or sending any warnings. Send a big meteor their way or make a deadly disease that looks like flu, infect everybody, and on set date kill all hosts. Much cheaper, and no risk of ceasing to exist.
What they did in the books was very risky and wasteful for no good reason.
> betting their existence on a species they knew already uses MAD
If ant colonies depend on MAD for continued existence, it means nothing to us. This example was used multiple times throughout the series. They didn't even make a singular bet on Earth. The invasion was just one avenue they chose for survival.
> You don't have to invade a system, you can send a stealthy probe.
In the dark forest of the three body universe you could send a probe, but you learn nothing if it finds no life in a system. The only reliable, actionable information a probe can provide you is if life is found. Finding an absence of life just as easily means that the life in the system is so far advanced beyond you that you cannot detect it. It would be far riskier to bet your future on a system in which you found no life. Not to mention that you are making a huge gamble on the stealthiness of said probe. The probe could be the very thing that makes you the target of a dark forest strike. Earth already appeared safe, so why take further action that carries real risk of notifying some other civilization that you exist? You can't be reliably stealthy because some other race can be technically beyond you.
> Send a big meteor
Earth was an un-imaginable eden to Tri-Solaris, it's made clear that they wanted the planet intact.
> or make a deadly disease that looks like flu
This requires a much longer timeline as multiple trips are required to carry out the plan. The Tri-Solarans were facing a very real threat of extinction that made a shorter plan worth the risk. It's made very clear that they did not wish to exterminate humanity.
Earth was valuable because in all probability the rest of the universe did not know it existed. Given that you are saying they were stupid for not building space habitats, you must not be aware of what actually happened to the Tri-Solarans :). Besides, those space habitats present their own form of danger to their inhabitants. Actually, the danger they pose is worse than existing on a planet.
> If ant colonies depend on MAD for continued existence, it means nothing to us.
But we're not an ant colony to them, we're already using technology that can be used for MAD (sending signals through the sun), and they know it from the start.
> Earth was an un-imaginable eden to Tri-Solaris, it's made clear that they wanted the planet intact.
As far as I understand every planet in the system was heaven for them, the orbit was important. Which is stupid, because you can make anything follow a circular orbit around some star.
> This [flu] requires a much longer timeline as multiple trips are required to carry out the plan.
Why? They have their stealth probe (don't remember how it was called), they can take a look at a spanish influenza or something and pimp it up a little. At worst they then need to send like 1 gram at almost light speed the conventional way - still much easier and faster than sending the armada.
> Given that you are saying they were stupid for not building space habitats, you must not be aware of what actually happened to the Tri-Solarans :).
They were destroyed because their coordinates were broadcasted. As they should expect from the start messing with civilization that broadcasted "hello".
> those space habitats present their own form of danger to their inhabitants. Actually, the danger they pose is worse than existing on a planet.
How? They aren't any less stealthy than sattelites, tv, or radio.
Tri-Solaris technologically stomps humanity throughout the series. Humanity was ignorant of the dark forest, and Tri-Solaris knew that. Further, they're able to suppress the Sun's broadcast capability. From their vantage point there was no feasible way for humanity to become aware of the dark forest. Their misunderstanding of humans is a central plot point. By every single measure Tri-Solaris had the advantage in a massive way.
> Why? They have their stealth probe
It was not stealthy. Humanity literally saw the probe pull ahead of the fleet and knew the probe was coming 50+ years before it arrived. Sometimes hiding behind an asteroid or planet is not stealth.
> They were destroyed because their coordinates were broadcasted.
No, the Tri-Solaris civilization still existed near the end of the universe. Their planet was destroyed, but they lived on as a space faring species.
> How? They aren't any less stealthy than sattelites, tv, or radio.
Do you recall what light-speed capable ships do to the fabric of the universe?
> Humanity was ignorant of the dark forest, and Tri-Solaris knew that
Tri-Solaris knew only what their sect was aware of, not what everyone on Earth thought. Also - they were somehow aware of the dark forest, would be very naive to think others can't discover it on their own. They were clearly considering it a real threat, because they tried to stop him and reacted so quickly when the guy staring at the wall did the experimental star demolition.
> Humanity literally saw the probe pull ahead of the fleet and knew the probe was coming 50+ years before it arrived.
Wasn't it only seen because they were already looking there? I might misremember something.
> Further, they're able to suppress the Sun's broadcast capability.
Only after the girl is chosen as the person to hold MAD button, IIRC. At that point the decisions on invasion were made centuries ago. Counting on that happening would be crazy.
> Do you recall what light-speed capable ships do to the fabric of the universe?
Not really, I ignored most of that 3rd book technobabble because it was unphysical. They were destroying universe and making it 2d or something?
Anyway, why should it matter? Habitats are supposed to orbit somewhere pleasant, like any dumb rock would do, not move at light speed.
> No, the Tri-Solaris civilization still existed near the end of the universe. Their planet was destroyed, but they lived on as a space faring species.
My bad, don't remember everything from the book. Still - this only proves my point - it's possible, so they should have done that from the start. They were never in "existential danger", just lazy (but still somehow happy to spend lots of resources, effort, and risk to live on Earth).
> Not really, I ignored most of that 3rd book technobabble because it was unphysical
I think this is the basis of our debate. I can totally understand why many people did not like the series. The author at times drags the reader through multiple chapters of details that feel as though they have nothing to do with the story. They don't even feel like world building. Honestly, I had a really hard time with some of those myself. Especially the first few chapters of books 2 and 3. However, in the end all those asides really matter to wrapping up the story. Is that good storytelling? I don't know. I rather enjoyed it though :)
But yeah, the last 25% of the final book is full of technobabble, but that babble is pretty important to wrapping up the story and understanding the motivation of each civilization.
Which Sci-Fi book or series of books would you say are the best?
From serious ones I liked "Permutation City" by Greg Egan. It was also very abstract at times, but it focused on one kind of abstraction, and one that I liked.
Anathem by Neal Stephenson was nice, too, I loved the worldbuilding with construction of whole independent history of science and philosophy on a fantasy world, and how people used it in their lives.
Algebraist by Ian Banks is interesting (not in the Culture series, Culture books are ok too, but there's no tension in these books whatsoever).
I love Lem, especially the robot stories, but also Futorological Congress, Solaris, His Masters' Voice. IMHO Lem has the best aliens in all sci-fi. Maybe Blindsight by Peter Watts comes close.
I also like Jacek Dukaj who I belive wasn't translated to English. But now that I think he tends to do the same thing as in 3rd book of 3 body problem - a book starts with regular people and easily relatable stuff, and by the end it's all so abstract and weird you don't know what's going on. It kinda puts me off, I prefer constant level of abstraction all the way through.
I mean sure, the turn-around time is great...but how did this pass review in the first place? This should never happen in a reasonably managed project.
It wasn't up for review. It was published out of band, and outside of the ESLint pipeline using likely stolen credentials. That's how that stuff sneaks in.
I can understand how having a touchscreen helps with mobile development, but I have no use for touchscreen functionality in my development. I don't have a desire for my macbook to have a touchscreen at all. Further, I think the touch bar was a huge mistake. I've really gotta side with the idea of letting a desktop/laptop excel at being a computer rather than suffering from an identity problem.
All that said, we all get to vote with our dollars :)
Just because you don't have a use (today) doesn't mean that no one has a use for it, much less that you wouldn't find a use for it tomorrow.
Touch on a laptop screen is a huge convenience, it's not a laptop identity problem. Sometimes tapping or scrolling a thing feels more natural, even on a laptop, even on any other screen that you own. Apple has used that very logic in their own marketing of the iPhone and iPad, that touching things is the more natural feel, that directly interacting with things on the screen is quite natural.
To a child growing up with iPhones and iPads, a screen without touch is "broken".
For an adult me, switching between a Windows laptop with touch to a macOS laptop without one takes a bit of mental gymnastics because I keep wanting to just tap the shiny icons to do things and I get briefly confused why the screen is broken when I try to touch them. I don't care how good you think a trackpad is, it's still sometimes faster to reach up and poke something with your pointer finger than track a pointer the long journey over to a thing. It's a nice convenience to have touch on the screen and do it directly.
Maybe that convenience doesn't interest you, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that convenience doesn't exist. (Plus, when you get into differently abled people you start to find people that that convenience starts to matter a lot more for their day-to-day happiness.)
I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying. I realize my viewpoint on this topic was
Very selfish. But that is why I pointed out that we all get to vote with our money.
Trump ran on and has tried to revitalize the coal industry: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/trump-s-b...
The first step in solving our problems, political or otherwise, is being honest about them. No matter where on the political spectrum you fall, every voting American knows that one side has pushed the idea that climate change is a hoax while the other has been trying to take action.
I’m not sure what the motivation of your question is. Proving that democrats have attempted action while the republicans have chosen to ignore science, is such low hanging fruit that I’m a bit baffled.