Except Trump/Tillersion just happily approved the biggest arms deal with Saudi, while the previous Obama administration was halting this deal because of human right violations in Yemen. Iran deal was also in the line to reduce Saudi's influence on foreign policy.
How were the polls fake when they were basically right? The state-polls for Wisconsin / Michigan in the end were wrong, but those states in the end were probably not polled enough to capture the volatility of unprecedented events like the Comey letter.
And FYI national polls predicted a 1-4% popular vote win, those where pretty much on the money.
What polls were "basically right" in the month, weeks, and days leading up to the election? I recall most of them being very off the mark because of their methodology. There were a ton of polls that consistently oversampled Democratic voters, women, and other groups to show results that favored Hillary. This is what made them fake polls. They were being conducted to produce a result that would reinforce a narrative.
Most Fake News (NBC, CBS, NYT, etc.) headlined these fake polls while not reporting sampling to their viewers. There's a reason almost all Fake News casters like Maddow were shocked on election night. They bought into their own lies and selective reporting. I learned of the sampling methodology from some of the very sites that Google now reports as "fake" and from Youtubers they have demonetized.
"Polls are used to influence public opinion, not reflect it."
What we're seeing is Google trying to control the narrative through search and monetization now. This is a more-extreme extension of the crap they pulled during the election (where Google search-complete consistently suggested positive things for Hillary and negative things for Trump).
Reminder of fake polls pushed by fake news. Almost all of the establishment media reported polls like this leading up to the election. They traded all credibility to shill for their candidate. But Google did, too, so such sites are still considered "news" by Google's standards.
The responses in that thread give me a headache, has the daily wtf forum always been such a wasteland? One of the replies is "someone posted your software to the daily wtf so there MUST be a problem with your software, you should just accept it and here's how you should respond". Maddening
And they even scold the author of the software for responding in an emotional tone, while the whole "wtf" rant was full of personal attacks (and misunderstanding C programming, not bothering with facts etc).
And thusly, a website originally created for people to point to actual coding WTFs by incompetent programmers is running posts by incompetent users, voted by other incompetent users.
Seriously?
The EFL author flatly denied to have "bitch" in the error message, posting even the grep results, while silently changing the error message from "bitch" to "complain" hoping that no one would notice it.
Obviously git history doesn't lie like him.
And he was the one that wrote that error message.
In the meantime he started attacking the author of the post on that forum with meaningless arguments.
And you have the courage to say that the incompetence is in the forum users rather than in such person that is so full of sh*t to just outrightly lie in front of everyone?
@Carsten_Haitzler said:
as for the "you bitch" comment. that does not appear anywhere inside efl at asll. i can only assume you are full of bullshit here as with a lot of the prior "facts" you have disclosed, as a grep through our codebase for efl and elementary shows no such string:
core/efl.git - EFL core libraries
evas - change error out from bitch to complain - cosmetic changeHEADmaster
committer Carsten Haitzler (Rasterman) raster@rasterman.com 2015-03-11 12:59:01 (GMT)
F#*k off.
Reading through some of these replies further down the thread, they seem to confirm the basic notion that EFL docs are really poor. Examples:
> key names - no - we didn't document it, but it'll be the same set as you get in x11. we emulate it elsewhere. yes- maybe we should explicitly document that but to date no one has actually complained
> if its a const char * of course you don't free - if it's a char * return (example) it'll be documented as to how to free it. if its' objects - objects stay alive until you delete them ... or the canvas they live in is deleted, or an object that has taken ownership is deleted (and objects that take ownership are in charge of deletion). it's the same throughout efl - its similar to gtk in that sense. it hasn't been explicitly documented i guess because it's a convention that is common enough.
On dynamic typing, and checking object types - and why it's a warning rather than hard error when a type doesn't match what's expected:
> default is to march on and recover with a complaint - the complaint is your signal to enable this next time you run and hunt down the detail. ... mostly the errors are harmless. the majority of code marches on fine - thus prefer staying alive over suddenly falling over.
1) only addresses one of the tens of points in the reply -- the others still being valid.
2) while true, it is still irrelevant from a technical standpoint (not to mention softened in the subsequent version anyway).
3) At worst, the Evas author failed to grep the right version for it. Whereas the ranter, at best, fails to understand C coding, failed to consult documentation that was right there, complaints for valid behavior, cites several wrong facts about the behavior of the code (like the supposed "512" object limit), and closes with the BS "it will take man-years" to build a sample simplistic media player with the lib (using a ready made codecs/media player widget component).
Evas/Eve etc have some questionable design decisions, and not the best documentation. But the original post is full of crap in almost every aspect, and with unwarranted language to boot.
Are you an EFL developer or the author?
I have read the whole 19 pages of comments, plus the sister thread on os news, and you are the only one that can't understand all the problems in that ball of sh*t apart from the EFL author and his coworker.
In any case I would prefer to lose an hand than to work with someone like you for which writing non type-safe C code, with 40 vulnerabilities discovered by a single researcher, is perfectly fine.
And as the author of the code writes 2-4 times, he looked for the literally mentioned quote and didn't find it -- he even posted the grep results.
He only found that it was "bitch" (single word) later from a later corrected comment and fixed it (out in the open, in the the public code repository in any way).
In any case, again, not technical, not a WTF, and not pertaining to the actual code/implementation.
The author of the code is the one who added that word to the code in the first place. You'd think he might remember that, even if the wording of the complaint was off.
If he does not, that invites the question of how many similar error messages are there in the code. Note that this is something that actually gets printed to stdout - in other words, if there's a bug in your app (or EFL, for that matter), your end user might see that message. I would dare say that's a pretty big WTF.
As bad as the author comes off in that exchange, Mr. Haitzler comes off worse. Nobody should respond to their customers like that, least of all in a public forum, regardless of the provocation.
He is not a customer, he just works for a company that has adopted the (open source) framework.
And even a customer is not some holy being that gets to behave in any way they like and it has to be accepted "regardless of the provocation". What he wrote has FUD and professionally damaging to mr. Haitzler (as a programmer), while also wrong in most aspects.
Nobody should just bend over for someone (even a "customer") "regardless of the provocation". Besides FUD and insults, should the "regardless" also allow for sexual or racist comments from a customer?
And speaking of duties, does the company (Samsung) see well to an employee of them bad-mouthing their OS and choices on some random forum?
To further clarify my position: I believe that rules of decorum, including responses to breaches in decorum, should govern not just traditional customer-business relationships, but user-developer and open-source community relationships as well – particularly the higher up the open-source ladder you go. Good business practice often means good community practice as well, and a healthy community is more likely to attract and retain good developers.
Now I am aware that several leaders of several major open-source communities do not consider such restraint to be necessary or even desirable. They're of course welcome to manage their communities as they see fit. I think it's a mistake though, and I believe it will lead inevitably to serious issues in those communities, if indeed it hasn't already.
I presumed from his post that he had actually developed with the framework in question. In which case, he is a user of the framework, and, as far as I'm concerned, a customer to the developers of the framework.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary...?
> Nobody should just bend over for someone...
There is a world of difference between being assertive (which is fine) and being dismissive and belittling (which is not). Mr. Haitzler went way over the line. He thought that tit for tat was appropriate. It is not.
By the way, given the rather suggestive way you phrased this, you might want to check your own use of sexualized comments before criticizing someone else's.
EFL is open source software, BSD licenced. The original author of the comment is not a customer. It's some uninformed person trashing the good work someone has made available to them for free. This attitude makes me want to stop writing open source, it's disgusting to see.
If even one third of what the original author was complaining is true (and judging by the response, it's way more than that), I don't see how EFL can be called "good work" in good conscience. Bad code and bad design don't get a free pass on account of being open source.
I can't comment on the specific details, I've never used EFL, but in general, when encountering problems with open source software you can do one of two things:
1. Write a long and angry rant about how terrible the software is on a public forum.
2. File issues, participate in the community, ask questions on the mailing list, submit pull requests to improve the docs, try and understand the design decisions behind the software you're using - it's possible that the author knows more about the problem than you, and there are perfectly good reasons for why things are as they are.
One of these things is more productive than the other.
In this case, the rant is not talking about minor bugs that can be fixed with a few (or even a few hundred) lines of code. It's talking about major design defects.
I do have to note, though, that the options are actually:
1. Use something else that's better.
2. <same as what you wrote above>
Based on everything I've read about EFL, including responses from its devs, #1 is by far the most productive choice you can make in these circumstances.
The rant is not really an option as such. It's just a way for someone to vent their frustration, which people occasionally need when dealing with problems like that in order to make themselves feel sane again. You can rant first, but you still have a choice of #1 or #2.
I also have to note that, for the author of the rant, neither was an option, because they weren't working on a project where they had a choice of framework - they were working on Tizen, and had to use EFL, that choice being made for them. I also doubt that their manager would allow them to use some of their work hours to go fix bugs in EFL, even assuming its maintainers would agree that these things are bugs (which they clearly didn't) - they had their own backlog and schedule. So they did the rant because they felt like they needed it, and they didn't really have the option of either #1 or #2 to fix anything.
Having watched more than one of my code babies be slaughtered by my colleagues in my career, I can certainly empathize as well. But I still think he came off poorly in that exchange.
That response has plenty of WTFs of its own, e.g.:
> efl checks object validity by looking at the first 4 bytes of the memory of the object. in here is a "magic number" that indicates both type and that the object isn't freed or garbage memory.
Interesting side-node about 'infamous'. Just because a movie depicts a terrible event or subject (Hitler in this case), it doesn't mean the move itself is 'infamous'. The movie (i.e. the artists) didn't do a terrible deed (e.g. completely misrepresent Hitler as innocent), so in this case the movie is simply "famous for it's Hitler in the bunker clip".
I think it's more infamous because the clip has been used memetically as a joke on other people/things freaking out about stuff. So the movie's not infamous but the clip is.
But it's still just famous because it's used in a humorous context. When I think of all of the combinations of those clips I've seen, I think of them in a funny way, not a bad way.
Maybe those clips are really offensive to some people, in which case they would be infamous to the offended.
Not quite 1:1. Google's very first language rule, "Run pylint..." is missing. Interesting that a tool set for hacking does not focus on basic code review tools.
Yup. Although I'm not surprised. CIA are intelligence gatherers, we can't expect them to be completely original, or even a tiny bit original in anything.
Or the Trump organization is much smaller than what he wants it to appear. It's mainly branding (Trump Vodka trump water, a lot of the Trump buildings), get-rich-schemes (Trump University, Trump Network) or hotels. And ofcourse the reality-tv business
For starters it was only a 70k vote differences between the electoral college win, so about anything small could have made a difference.
The leaks itself were only small and didn't contain so much, but they were amplified with big dis-information campaign that surely must have depressed Democratic turnout to some degree. Especially the leaks focused on demotivating the former Bernie supporters, to support their (imo wrongly) narrative that the primaries were rigged against Bernie by the DNC.
You realise you are just inventing another way to 'delegitimise' elections.
If there is even the tiniest wrong doing the US is an advanced country with a sophisticated infrastructure, legal process and rule of law to oversee fair elections.
Surely any hint of wrong doing should be pursued aggresively through the US courts than smear campaigns and innuendo in media that seek to cast apersions and undermine the very process and results of free and fair elections.
How do you propose to hold free and fair election or call for them now if any loser can now seek to delegitimise the results by pointing to 'propaganda' and 'hidden forces'? Because if your position is 'people can be misled by propaganda' then this position negates the basis of democratic elections.
This is against common sense, due process and rule of law. This 'burn the house down' strategy by losers cannot be accepted in any civilised society governed by law.
How did Hillary became the prime candidate even when it was Bernie that had high turnout? DNC leadership favored Hillary blindly, thats why. If the leadership was neutral Bernie would've been the main candidate by popular vote. If the race was between Bernie and Trump, Bernie would've win.
Not to mention that all most all media channels were bashing anything Trump but actively not reporting bad things about Hillary. Even the slightest negative about Trump got coverage whereas Hillary was safe from such media bashing. If Trump and Hillary where given neutral and equal coverage, then Trump would've gotten even higher vote.
