LinXitoW

The proof would be the drugs on the boat. Unless they're bombing alleged drug dealers on pleasure cruises.

Isn't one gigantic advantage with Postgres the ACID part?

It seems to me that the hardest part of going for a MQ/distributed log like Kafka is re-working existing code to now handle the lack of ACID stuff. Things that are trivial with Postgres, like exactly once delivery, are huge undertakings without ACID.

Personally, I don't have much experience with this, so maybe I'm just missing something?

"Tolerate" might be a better word to use for their analogy. I can hate you and all you stand for, but I can still tolerate you. Meaning, I let you be and don't try to curtail your actions according to my personal beliefs.

Aren't screenshots just one implementation specific variant of the possible solutions? Recall immediately made me think about a universal API that all kinds of applications write history to. That data can then be searched, or you could possibly even have global undo/redo.

Screenshots are just "easier" to use, because you don't need to implement anything for individual apps. "Easier" only if you have data centers full of compute and the capital to very inefficiently throw a bunch of silicon and electricity at the problem.

Yes, you are, to the extent that "the other option" would have been better.

This seems incredibly obvious. If my options are "don't bomb children" and "bomb children", there's an obvious choice and obvious culpability. If my options are "bomb children" and "bomb way the fuck more children" the choice is also obvious.

You do not get to pretend a moral dilemna doesn't exist just because you're not a fan of the available choices. You are still culpable.

Well yes, but you're completely misunderstanding how the trolley problem applies to voting, esp. in the USA. You're pretending that "Not Voting" and "Voting" are the switch options, but that's simply not true.

There are just two possible outcomes: Dems or Reps getting power. That's the switch options you have. "Not Voting" simply means letting the trolley take the Rep route and being JUST AS CULPABLE for the results as every single republican voter.

Your fantasy of "not voting" being an actual moral option is like arguing "I disagree with the concept of a trolley, so I'm just going to turn away from the switch". You're morally exactly as culpable, because you made a choice that is morally the equivalent of "not switching tracks".

Here in Germany, we have like 20 different parties on the ballot, with maybe 6 of those having a reasonable chance to actually get any seats. Not a SINGLE ONE perfectly represents me and my issues.

I still voted, because my personal laziness or moral superiority does not trump the very real world effects of the "bad ones" winning. Lazy people like you with post hoc rationalizations exist here too, and they're just as bad and wrong.

In other replies you explicitly state how rare it is that you log in to other systems.

Aren't you therefore optimizing for 1% of the cases, but sabotaging the 99%?

It's super simple. Check out all the Fediverse alternatives. How many people that talk a big game actually financially support those services? 2% maybe, on the high end.

Things cost money, and at a large scale, there's either capitalism, or communism.

Without any snark, what's the reason? I'm assuming it's either made up or exagerated NIMBY nonsense, but what environmental argument could there possibly be against light commercials in residential areas?

If people are only worth 10/hr, but they need 15/hr to not die, the state has to step in to subsidize the exploitative business. Alternatively, the employees turn to crime, which is again a costly externality the company causes, or they die and the companies back to not having employees (or customers).

I absolutely agree that some of the regulations are bad, and in general building more is the main solution to these problems. Zoning and parking space requirements are especially egregious in the USA.

The example in this thread, of "co-locating" everyday commercial with residential, is another part of the solution. I can move further away from the city if the daily necessities are easier to reach. This would also help with traffic, which would then help people needing to commute.

But the "simple" system will be full of repetition and boilerplate, meaning the same bugs are scattered around the code base, and obscured by masses of boilerplate.

Isn't a GC also a Magic? Or anything above assembly? While I also understand the reluctance to use too much magic, in my experience, it's not the magic, it's how well the magic is tested and developed.

I used to work with Play framework, a web framework built around Akka, an async bundle of libraries. Because it wasn't too popular, only the most common issues were well documented. I thought I hated magic.

Then, I started using Spring Boot, and I loved magic. Spring has so much documentation that you can also become the magician, if you need to.

There's a special brand of anti-intellectualism running rampant in tech circles. They've drunk the koolaid on STEM vs. humanities and therefore glorify their willful ignorance towards all things "soft" science, like morals or philosophy.

If you gave the jewish resistance in Nazi Germany the same deal, would you be just as suprised if they continued to fight for total freedom?

Well, hows the "peace" in the West Bank, where there's no Hamas? Israel has proven in both the West Bank AND Gaza that they do not care whether you violently resist or you attempt to be peaceful. You WILL BE REMOVED from your land, dispossessed of everything you own, because growing the Israeli people is more important than your life, your rights, your anything.

People called a genocide because if we wait for it to be bad enough to be called a genocide by even the most cynical person, too many people have died.

Quite frankly, the genocide of the Jewish people in Germany also started far sooner than just the final solution. But I guess "Never again" is just fancy words for pretenders.

[flagged]

These are death rates with the current saturation of plants. If we wanted to cover all of Europe, a much more densely populated area, with nuclear, the deaths (and other negative consequences) would be far greater, no?

Well, good thing that we have no reason to build these reactors as far away from population centers as possible, right?

We already have enough heat for that, from industries. Distribution is the biggest factor, and in that, distance. It's really cool, but it's stupidly expensive up front. Not to mention, you need to require EVERYONE in the area to buy in and stay in to have any hopes of being worth it in the long run. NIMBYism strikes again.

Nuclear is more expensive and more geopolitically dangerous than renewables. For a short time, Germany was even leading in PV technology, it could've been our new sector we dominate in. But, as always, greedy investors and corrupt right wing politicians starved out any possibility of positive change.

And I find it horrendously hilarious that you believe the same people that work tirelessly against renewables would actually EVER build nuclear. It's about milking the status quo for cash as long as possible and then fucking off into retirment with that stolen money.

Btw, what's the german energy companies opinion on building nuclear? RWE a big fan? (They aren't!)

You mean western sources like the USA, that suddenly starts waving it's dick around when the wrong dipshit is elected? The USA that made a nuclear deal with Iran and then scrapped it for no fucking reason?

This is just utterly and completely wrong. EVEN THE COMPANIES THEMSELVES say it would be stupid to reopen those plants.

And, of course, the idea that "dependence" on Russia is bad, but replacing it with dependence on other states AND with building a bunch of nuclear bombs in my backyard that are PRIME targets to literally take out my entire grid, is laughably bad.

You do NOT get to constantly taut the low mortality rates of nuclear AND call for less regulation at the same time.

But even from a very matter of fact point of view, I'd rather have 1000 people die every year for 20 years, than have 20.000 people die on a single bad day/week. The economic and social impact is far, far bigger when it can't be "spread out" over multiple years.

How so? Why is that a nail in the renewable coffin, but not the nuclear one? Nuclear is constantly sold as a miracle base load cure, but it can't even manage that.

Why isn't that instead a call for more storage, in general?

Well, not really. Investing in heating homes or powering light bulbs is, outside of extremely extreme situations, always a good investment, because people will always want to do that.

AI is also just super young, has apparently zero mote, requires insane amounts of hardware that basically becomes useless after a couple of years, and has promised, over and over, the AI revolution is just around the corner multiple times without ever delivering.

Let's not pretend that the companies running those plants are being hindered by the government. They themselves have said turning them back on is a stupid idea.

If we had renewables everywhere, wouldn't a lot of that potentially disappear?

If you did what nuclear fans did and tried to cover most/all of the load with nuclear, you would necessarily need to build more nuclear power plants, which esp. in Europe would automatically put them closer to population. That would automatically increase the lives lost from catastrophies.

Well, no, that's more down to nuclear fans constantly using the worst possible comparisons, and creating false dichotomies. The better comparison are renewables or natural gas, not an ancient technology literally everybody (outside of it's investors) agrees is bad and should go.

How plenty is the supply that's not in some other countries control, that might make us dependent on them, yet again, like with Germany, gas and Russia.