RandoHolmes

That just means you weren't valuing the right things.

At the end of the day, that's what it's about. It's not about "technique A should have been used instead of technique B", it's more about what you value. It matters because those values will inform both your decisions and your actions.

For example, someone who values performance will not write slow code. Someone who values productivity will write slow code. Someone who values stability may or may not write slow code and may or may not be productive, but their systems won't arbitrarily go down.

by definition it's not true, and any sequence of thoughts that lead you to that conclusion are wrong, period.

If the answer to the question of "will it be supported in 5 years" is no, it can never be considered a "stable stack".

Why migrate working code to a new language?

And to do it twice?

Can you imagine responding to "everyone dies" with "please post specifics, thanks"?

From what I can see, this poster stated that no programming language is perfect, and I'm struggling to see why they need to back that up.

Only you DO use languages that end up as machine code, and the idea of understanding machine code to better utilize something like C isn't outlandish.

Or maybe this is a board full of programmers who love to fret over unimportant minutia.

The idea has a well understood meaning, just use that meaning. Yes, maybe somewhere on the edges it's fuzzy, learn to live with fuzzy.

For example, I actually do understand http, but doing anything not explicitly designed for by the framework of choice can be painful. It's not that I don't understand the underlying tech, it's that the "magic" is expecting a specific use case that I don't want to do.

I would almost bet your next post will include a comparison to either hitler or nazi's.

Either way, I'm certainly done engaging. Not of fan of escalation because you lost the point.

I'm not interested in going on a tangent because you had a political agenda behind your question.

The question has been answered.

That's just how logic works.

The question is whether or not a 15 or 16 year old can consent to non-harmful sex, and the answer is obviously yes. At that point they are sexual creatures with their own urges. two 16 year olds having sex is not harmful in any meaningful way, many many people start having sex at 16 (or younger) and go on to be just fine.

At this point, as far as I'm concerned, it's been clearly established that young people under the age of consent _CAN_ actually consent to sex.

Statutory Rape is not about consent, it's about manipulation. Due to the differences in life experience between a 16 year old and a 20 year old, the 20 year old can manipulate the 16 year old to give that consent. This does not imply that the sex between them is implicitly harmful to the 16 year old, just that it's immoral for a 20 year old to do this sort of manipulation.

It's also clear that a 20 year old can rape a 16 year old. Actually rape. And they'll be charged with rape, regardless of the age of consent. This is because, by definition, with statutory rape the 16 year old DID consent.

And one last piece of evidence to show clearly that you are wrong here.

It's possible for 2 25 year olds to have sex and statutory rape charges be brought. How? Because one of them is mentally handicapped.

Because Statutory Rape is not specifically about the age of consent, or giving consent. It's about the coercion of someone who is not considered mentally capable of protecting themselves from said coercion. It's about the morality, not about any sort of inherent harm of the sex itself.

And to head off one argument that I KNOW is coming. The age of consent in Japan is 13, pointing out that the age of consent is 16 in many places in western civilization is not meaningful or useful here. It doesn't change the ideas that I've presented in this post.

I'll never understand why so many people believe that if something isn't perfect, it's broken.

All one has to do is read a single article discussing law enforcement finding and preventing a bomb or a shooter to know that our laws are, in fact, preventing these scenarios. They're just not preventing all of the them.

And you know what? That's good. Freedom has inherent risk. I don't want to live in a society where we're so unfree that our laws are able to prevent all crime.

The point is that it's possible to do. It doesn't mean we should, but it is possible.

This was my problem with the article. Yes, most people do act exactly as you say. But what if you get that entitled asshole who does actually cut in line? Because there are people out there who will do that. Now what do you do? Resort to mob justice?

There's a segment of the population that won't act that way towards others, and that segment is WHY we have those laws in place.

I install everything via CLI and pretty explicitly always avoid the GUI they have for installing software. It's never been good, ever.

I'm on 20.04 and I think it's a fantastic release, head and shoulders better than 18.04.

The only thing in the author's list that I really take issue with is installing a snap when a user attempted to install from a .deb file. That sort of shit is antithetical to linux, and if it continues to get worse would actually be a reason for me to leave Ubuntu.

But everything else is just a non-issue to me.

Statutory rape LITERALLY means "consensual sex with someone below the age of consent". Because if the sex was non-consensual, it's called rape regardless of age.

RMS's biggest problem is that he was technically correct, but surrounded by a society of idiots.

Exactly right. The sort of discipline I'm discussing here isn't conscientiousness.

Someone who scores low in conscientiousness, but then has children, is going to be a lot more responsible than they were before they had children.

Someone else accused me of reverse ageism. As if I'm biased against young people because I believe that people generally get better at life the more life experience they have. My rule of thumb is that if you're dealing with someone 10+ years older than you, it's generally good to assume they can read you better than you can read them.

> wholly, exclusively. a selection based purely on merit

---

> A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence

because you know ... knowing that a person's phone was in the vicinity at a specific time in a specific area is as strong as a video of person A killing person B.

Such a common "misconception".

Furthermore, we know that people get wrongly convicted. We know this because they get exonerated down the road. It's also a tautology. "It's ok to use circumstantial evidence to get convictions because the legal system currently uses circumstantial evidence to get convictions".

Some of us don't want to go to jail because we happened to be driving through the wrong place at the wrong time.

Then I think it's pretty clear that's not what I meant when I said children... It becomes even more clear when you realize I said "or their own car", or did you think it was my belief that 5 year olds were driving themselves to school?

Because that's what you're implying here, and I don't think any reasonable person would make the claim that's obvious.

But this can happen without moderators banning anyone who brings up LGBTQ. The idea that you must ban those discussions in order to have LGBTQ participate is doing that demographic a disservice.

To contrast that, I'm Native American. Imagine if dang felt the need to ban any discussion involving Native Americans because he felt it was necessary to allow me, and those like me, to participate in discussions.

That's not how that works. It's how misguided people work.

edit: Also, to answer your question. It turns out the world doesn't revolve around reddit and I'm able to find communities without reddit (or simply leave it behind).

Pretty much every adult does this as a matter of course.

IIRC there were accusations of CP being put up and not taken down in a timely manner. For that reason I'm ok with the subreddit not being there, but the whole "sexualization of a minor" thing is a red herring.

just imagine if someone got up in arms about a magazine putting a picture of a 16 y/o with big tits on their cover. No one does unless she's explicitly in a sexual position.

I left /r/patientgamers after the mods came out and declared they were going to be LGTBQ friendly, which meant any discussion about those issues, even if they were related to a game (for example the remake of Baldurs Gate) would result in a ban. The argument made by a lot of people is that the community should get to decide if that's something they want to discuss, not the moderators (and I agree).

I also left /r/fitness when they decided what they needed was a female moderator. They specifically decided they wanted a new moderator and that moderator had to be female. As if male moderators are unable to identify sexual harassment.

I don't want to be moderated by people who have a political agenda. Fullstop.

I didn't go to /r/fitness because it had a 'diverse' moderation team, I wanted to go there to discuss with fellow fitness enthusiasts. I didn't want to go to /r/patientgamers because it was a "safe space", I went there to discuss with others who also mostly refused to buy games for $60+ USD.

Too often moderators forget why they're there, and think that just because they have the power to means they should. There is absolutely a time and place to let upvotes make the decision of what stays and what goes. Not always, but very often it's true.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be inclusive, but lets also make sure we're not pretending that there aren't problems there. You can't try to fix a problem you won't acknowledge.

Now, perhaps you meant something else when you said harmful, I just interpreted it that way because I would have expected you to say 'bad' if it was the case that the articles were judging the people themselves (much like a religious person might).

I don't even understand why people would live their life with that much anger and hatred. I would literally see what was obviously just a miscommunication or bad actions with good intentions that could be resolved by communication and people would just vilify the person.

yuck.

I don't use reddit on mobile specifically because I don't download apps on my phone (outside of a few small games such as bejeweled), and I think surfing the internet on the phone is miserable regardless. The only thing I ever crack my browser open for is to look something up while at the grocery store, etc.