Parent comment is either commenting in bad faith to muddy the waters, or doesn't care.
The people they elected commit atrocities, but the propaganda machine is beaming to their heads that they're only hurting against people they don't like, so they feel good about the cruelty. You know, stuff N*zis do.
I've also been a daily cyclist for over 10 years in Paris and paradoxically, I feel less safe now when I'm riding on shared infrastructure (that is roads without a separated cycling lane). I attribute it to the fact that people driving, and especially people who HAVE to drive (taxis, deliveries, etc...) are facing insane levels of congestion and are lashing out on cyclists because they blame them for being stuck in traffic for hours every day.
Now of course as a cyclist, I applaud all this new infrastructure but I'm wondering if there's a way to appease this growing atmosphere of violence (and I'm not exagerating, I've seen several fights break out between motorists and cyclists). Given the very limited space available in Paris centre, I don't really see an easy way unfortunately...
Curious if that's also something you noticed / experienced ?
I had the same reaction when bike lines were rolled out over London.
The influx of slower and less inexperienced riders with the (correct) mentality of "I have the right to cycle as slowly as I feel safe to", vs the previous (incorrect, but accepted) mentality of "keep up with traffic or pull over" amongst riders, made my cycle commute less efficient.
But it's better now. People learn, the city adjusts, attitudes change.
> Given the very limited space available in Paris centre, I don't really see an easy way unfortunately...
Bicycles take less space than cars, both on road and when parked, don't they? A four-lane bicycle highway is as wide as one-lane car road. If anything, people switching from cars to bicycles should produce more free space for the city, not less.
Many streets have been transformed to one way or made cycle-only so some critical arteries are getting congested a lot. I feel the violence and anger too, you don't even need to go to Paris, the suburbs are becoming a mess of seething drivers. I get a lot more of very dangerous behaviour, insults from drivers on shared infrastructure as I did 5 years ago, even though I have my kids in a cargo and I cycle around the max assisted (25km/h) speed or higher if my legs work, most of the time.
I see shouting matches at least once a week, angry drivers honking on streets they can't even pass a bicycle... And isolated infrastructure is not always possible...
I feel this has become another part of some culture war, where I just don't have a license and drive my kids around in a bicycle (I don't want to drive a car) so I'm some angry green extremist out to annoy every driver out there...
In Paris, most people who are now biking are people who would have taken public transportation before, so the amount of cars on the roads is roughly the same as before.
I don't live there anymore but I grew up in Paris -
I knew absolutely nobody living in Paris driving to another location in Paris. It's always been metro first, bicycle sometime. Almost all of the passenger car you see in Paris are people driving from the suburb.
Many cars in Paris are driven by people commuting to Paris from outside. There is a real fracture between suburbans (who don't vote for those changes happening in Paris) and city residents who votwd for them.
This looks interesting but I’m a bit worried about the CSAM / illegal stuff part, could a user get in trouble because he has traces of that in his crawled index? Also, how large is the index after indexing for a few months?
An indexer doesn't download content. The only information you'll have is the name of a torrent, potentially its files, and who is interested in those files.
But that's the technical view, what happens in court might be totally different.
In order to get the information such as the name of the torrent and its files from the hash you do need to connect to someone in the swarm to download that metadata. You won't know what it is until after you've already connected.
Connecting to an unknown machine and asking what they have, is like knocking on a stranger's door and asking what they're selling. Them mentioning something nefarious and you leaving in response, is very obviously not a crime.
There probably are nefarious content you can see just from the filenames but not everything is like that. Moreover, you "only" know they distribute it, you don't do it yourself.
The real question is: metadata is data, so are there any limitations on how much data can be transferred through DHT using well-behaving clients/servers so that you can be reasonably sure what you download on your machine isn't poisoned enough to possibly get you into trouble with the law enforcement?
At least in the case of https://coveapp.info, the metadata you fetch from users while scraping is disassembled into a form for efficient searching only. The only part remaining in an identifiable form is the infohash.
You might be correct today but that’s a pretty sad state of affairs, don’t you think we can do better? Most other engineering domains can deliver projects without bugs, with various definitions of “bug” of course
I'm not sure about that. Which engineering domain do you have in mind?
Maybe show-stopping bugs are somewhat unique to software engineering, but all somewhat-complex products are flawed to some extent imho.
It might be an unergonomic handle on a frying pan, furniture that visibly warps under the slightest load (looking at ikea shelfing) or the lettering coming off the frequently used buttons on a coffee machine.
But there do exist shelves that don’t warp, when used within some reasonable bounds.
I’d also quibble about the buttons on the coffee machine. They might be properly designed, just subject to the normal wear-and-tear that is inevitable in the real world. This is not a defect, physical devices have finite lifespans.
As far as computers go… if we got to the point where the main thing that killed our programs was the hard drives falling apart and capacitors drying out, that would be quite impressive and I think everyone would be a little bit less critical of the field.
Formally verified, bug free software exists. It just costs a LOT to produce, and typically isn't worth it, except for things like cryptographic libraries and life or death systems.
As the discipline has evolved, the high integrity tools are slowly being incorporated into typical languages and IDEs to generally improve quality cheaper. Compare C++ to rust for example, whole classes of bugs are impossible (or much harder to make) in rust.
A shelve is a dumb primitive static object though. Even a simple hello world goes over a huge amount of lines of code before it is displayed on a screen, ANY one of which being faulty could result in a bug visible to the enduser. And most of that is not even controlled by the programmer — they might call into libc, which calls into the OS, which calls into drawing/font rendering libraries, that calls into video card drivers that “calls” into the screen’s firmware.
I think “hello world” is not really the simplest program in this context, in the sense that printing, as you note, involves touching all that complicated OS stuff. In terms of, like, actual logic complexity implemented by the programmer compared to mess carried along by the stack, it is really bad.
But I mean, I basically agree that the ecosystem is too complicated.
To be an engineer is to know the expected system requirements and build a product that is extremely optimized for the system requirements.
There's a saying that I think fits very well here: "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."
You don't want a bridge to cost 50 years and quadrillions of dollars to build, you want a cheap bridge safe for the next 50 years done in 2 years.
I would not call the resulting bridge "bug free", of course.
We can certainly do better, but it takes a _lot_ of time, effort, care and discipline; something most teams don't have, and most projects can't afford.
Bugs arise from the inherent complexity introduced by writing code, and our inability to foresee all the logical paths a machine can take. If we're disciplined, we write more code to test the scenarios we can think of, which is an extremely arduous process, that even with the most thorough testing practices (e.g. SQLite) still can't produce failproof software. This is partly because, while we can control our own software to a certain degree, we have no control over the inputs it receives and all of its combinations, nor over the environment it runs in, which is also built by other humans, and has its own set of bugs. The fact modern computing works at all is nothing short of remarkable.
But I'm optimistic about AI doing much better. Not the general pattern matching models we use today, though these are still helpful with chore tasks, as a reference tool, and will continue to improve in ways that help us write less bugs, with less effort. But eventually, AI will be able to evaluate all possible branches of execution, and arrive at the solution with the least probability of failing. Once it also controls the environment the software runs in and its inputs, it will be able to modify all of these variables to produce the desired outcome. There won't be a large demand for human-written software once this happens. We might even ban software by humans from being used in critical environments, just like we'll ban humans from driving cars on public roads. We'll probably find the lower quality and bugs amusing and charming, so there will be some demand for this type of software, but it will be written by hobbyists and enjoyed by a niche audience.
I’m not sure that straightforward, the value of the land will only really increase if the project is somewhat successful and the landowners (not necessarily part of the “local community”) expect to be paid the already inflated price without having to take on any risk.
Both sides are just trying to maximize/minimize their gain/cost, introducing some moral angle just seems weird to me.
Especially when any attempt to significantly expand the housing supply (considering the current situation) should surely be viewed as a net positive for the society as a whole?
I’m far from being antivax but if you look at the thousands / millions of deaths caused by religious wars and / or strict societal control in history and up to today I’m not sure I agree with your statement that antivax people are way more dangerous than organized religion.
I've been learning Spanish using Comprehensible Input and it's been a complete game-changer for me. Oversimplified, it's learning a language by watching videos where you understand about 80% of what's going on without trying to analyze the vocabulary or grammar. No studying, no memorization. Your subconscious does the heavy lifting. Part of the goal is take conscious translation out of the picture. For example, if you hear "manzana," the ideal is that word directly connects to your image of what an apple is, not to the English world "apple."
It takes hundreds of hours, but for me, it's working, and I'm enjoying it. I'm using Dreaming Spanish [0] which is free for a while, and then pretty cheap if you want to keep going. Strongly recommended.
As someone who learned the language in about 4 months, my advice is to saturate yourself with conversation as much as possible without worrying about grammatical or structural correctness at first, just learn to talk and use as many words as possible for essential conversation without worrying how well you say everything. Immerse yourself in doing this as much as possible.
Ideally, if you work remotely, move to latin america for a few months. Otherwise, find a digital (app-based maybe) or social way of doing the same where you are. Also, suppress all embarrassment about saying anything incorrectly, just get the essential ability to communicate ideas across first while you converse as much as possible. Refinement can come later, the first thing is to learn the broad strokes rapidly.
My two cents from experience learning two additional languages fluently.
i've gotten pretty good with just duolingo and trying to have basic conversations with my in-laws over the weekends. Biggest problem to me is the grasping sentences as a whole most of the time, i still translate indiviual words. This creates akward delays when i am responding. I would recommend trying to grasp sentences as a whole vs words.
I really fail to see the logic here, if Donald trump remained a Democrat in 2016 he would 100% not get nominated. Just look at what happened with Bloomberg.
Show some examples of this, AFAIK if you go against the voters you're out.
Republicans questions election results without proof and they are "undermining democracy". Hilary Clinton calls Trump an "illegitimate president" in 2019 and it's crickets.
Of course they'll wave their hands saying "it's different", but it's not. Either denying election results without evidence is wrong or it's not.
The first example is just not comparable, republicans are to this day proclaiming election stolen without ANY evidence of fraud.
While the 2016 event has always been about Russian election interference NOT election conspiracy by democrats.
The article you provided is Hillary saying sour grapes (not sure why poor ol Jimmy is asked about it), not rambling about crazy conspiracies to the point of embracing it.
Second example is more make sense, because Republicans strategy since Gingrich (of never compromise always obstruct), so if democrats are in favor of A then republican strategy is to literally advocate for B even though they are also for A (look at gun control passed in red states or voter encouragement laws).
Hilary said, without any proof, "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did."
But you make excuses about "sour grapes". It's not, she making claims of "voter suppression", "hacking" that resulted in a unfair election. That's a very serious accusation and undermines the election process. Just as serious as Republicans claiming election fraud.
Either making claims about illegitimate elections is wrong or not.
The difference is she's not wrong about those things (3/4 of them):
there was interference in the election (hacking)
Republicans have pushed for voter suppression
"fake" stories did plague her election (emails, benghazi)
voter purge I'm not sure what that is suppose to be about in this context.
And this is coming from a person that "hates" Hillary.
I don't make any excuse for her statements, I'm saying she not Donald trump who controls and influences their party.
How is her conduct during the Benghazi crisis and her leaked emails “interference”? Those seem like legitimate things for voters to take into consideration?
Again, Republicans say there were issues with the election and it’s “threatening democracy”, Hilary does it and everyone thinks it fine.
