ailideex

I'm sure it sounds great if you also think that nobody with morals that is not yours should ever have political power - but that is not an option and even if it was I don't think that is a reasonable expectation or desire.

>> I don't think so.

> I think what he means is that democracy as understood by most, is basically a dictatorship of the majority.

If the majority of people are against that more authoritarian form of government, why would they support it? If they are not against it, how would them restricting their own speech help? This argument just makes no sense.

Either they support it or they don't - speech restrictions that they supposedly impose on themselves to prevent them from being more authoritarian like they would like to be is just - I don't know - does not make sense to me - some circular reasoning somewhere there.

If the majority wants to be more authoritarian, and they would be save for speech restrictions, why would they not just vote to change the speech restrictions?

Yes. I don't think the government should be our moral police nor should it dictate what morals are acceptable.

> I don't think there is a solution beyond education?

I don't think education should try and instil morals. This seems rather totalitarian to me. Where would these morals come from, how would we decide what morals our children should be indoctrinated with in school?

like?

> it needs an authoritarian component to prevent more authoritarian form of governments from taking over.

I don't think so.

Why?

> one can expect that prices rise for things that rich people buy (stocks), but not for things that poor people buy (food, gasoline, rent).

Is it bad if things that poor people buy don't increase in price? Also, these things are fundamentally different - I can sell a stock after I have held it for some time and used it to get the dividend - I cannot sell food, gasoline or rent after using it. And not just rich people hold stocks - maybe they are more likely to hold it directly but even in a country like South Africa where I'm from some of the poorest people benefit from gains in stock market through pension funds.

> Maybe stocks aren’t really getting over-valued, maybe it’s the dollar that’s getting de-valued.

One of the best measures for value of stock, PE ratio, is not even mentioned in the article - so I would take it with a grain of salt.

If the person I replied to qualified their comment with "lets assume laws of physicis is not relevant" then sure...

And the only reason I discussed that is because earlier in this thread someone claimed "The project is part tech demo for fun, part shut up the people who complain about moc."

> Because the meta object generated by the verdigris macro will continue to work with newer version of Qt. But in Qt6, the binary format will change so some adaptations will be required.

If it Qt6 retains backwards source code compatibility then verdigris should still keep working I guess. If not then yes verdigris will need to change but in neither of these cases do I see binary compatibility as being relevant - if you compiled something for Qt5 and the binary compatibility breaks to Qt6 then this will affect you regardless of having used verdigris or not no?

You would still see infrared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Conjectures_abou...

> Such a feat of astroengineering would drastically alter the observed spectrum of the star involved, changing it at least partly from the normal emission lines of a natural stellar atmosphere to those of black-body radiation, probably with a peak in the infrared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technosignature

> A Dyson sphere, constructed by life forms dwelling in proximity to a Sun-like star, would cause an increase in the amount of infrared radiation in the star system's emitted spectrum. Hence, Freeman Dyson selected the title "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation" for his 1960 paper on the subject.[4] SETI has adopted these assumptions in its search, looking for such "infrared heavy" spectra from solar analogs. From 2005, Fermilab has conducted an ongoing survey for such spectra, analyzing data from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite.[5][6]

In my view the nature of Nazi Germany was fundamentally different from the nature of German Empire and I do not think that it's nature was an understandable response to the actions of Franz and Britain.

So anything that starts out as a tech demo should forever be called a tech demo?

> It is relatively low maintenance given that Qt maintain binary compatibility anyway (Qt 6 will be another story).

It is a header only library ... not sure what binary compatibility has to do with it ...

That is kind of the thing though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto), it is historical and maybe you can say highlighting this bit of history is done with some ulterior motive - but even if it was I am actually not that concerned about that. If knowing some historic fact changes someone's mind on some issue - not sure why it should be hidden from them - seems kind of nefarious to care even.

If the article itself was deceptive in some way then it would be a problem but then it would be better to just point out the deception.

> But it's important to consider how external forces drove its development in that direction.

> I do think that it could have turned out very differently.

So imagine this was written in response to saying "Nazi Germany was angry and suspicious because it was a brutal fascist regime that relied on purging dissidents and killing millions to stay in power."

I think most people would have a bit of a bone to pick ... so ... I dont know - food for thought. I don't think we need to equivocate every time we condemn what the USSR was.

> A technology demonstration or demonstrator model, informally known as a tech demo, is a prototype, rough example or an otherwise incomplete version of a conceivable product or future system, put together as proof of concept with the primary purpose of showcasing the possible applications, feasibility, performance and method of an idea for a new technology.

Verdigris has been developed and maintained now for over 4 years. Not only does it work - it has unit tests, CI and issues are addressed by the maintainers.

While verdigris does demonstrate that something is technically possible, so does Apache httpd - does not make Apache httpd a tech demo.

No, I understand what it does.

> Moc just adds some more generated code next to you valid C++ code

Code without which the complete output of your toolchain from your source is incomplete and therefore invalid - again if this was not the case you would not need to run MOC at all.

But those additional source files are essential to the operation of my program - if they werent - and it was just entirely optional - why would someone ever opt to run it?

> it is not an additional preprocessing step, but a parallel one.

If I write something and I use QT MOC specials like Q_OBJECT and I do no MOC processing occurs I will never obtain the output I consider as correct as a whole - sure if I don't care about the output as a whole and just look at parts of it then I could say those parts there and correct. But I did not write Q_OBJECT because I like the way it looks in my source file, I wrote it so that MOC could generate some specific code without which my program will not function correctly.

> This .o is exactly the same that one that would be produced in a complete Qt program.

Say I had a program (XPP) that for all valid c++ input generates the output that a c++ compiler would generate for:

   // blank

When I write c++ I don't just care that some output is generated - if the output is just missing some parts it is still wrong - even if I could go add those parts by hand.

Similarly if I write Qt, I actually care very much that when I put Q_OBJECT that some things end up in the output - because if I did not I would not use MOC.

So put differently I expected Q_OBJECT (and what it expands to) to have semantic meaning which is not provided by a standard compliant C Preprosessor and C++ Compiler.

And if it was valid output - i.e. the output is the entirety of what I expected from the input - then I would not need to ever use MOC.

If it is not semantics essential to the correct operation of your program then this is a different matter. I really am not sure what the contention here or misunderstanding is.

When I write C++ I write it for a C pre-processor and C++ compiler to read in order to obtain a output program which does something specific and in line with the C++ standard.

This is not some high minded purism - this is just pragmatic reality.

If I write something in my source which I expect to result in specific output but the specific output cannot be obtained if I use a standard compliant C Preprosessor and C++ Compiler then either my expectation is wrong or I'm writing something which is not C++.

So if you don't rely on the behaviour that results from MOC being part of the toolchain then sure - you are writing C++ - if you do - it is not C++.

If the semantics (in a sense where it actually affects output) is part of a language, which it is, then changing the semantics of the language makes it a different language.

> So I can see the argument from a puristic view, but in practice, once my built is setup to run it (cmake automoc or something), it simply works.

This does not make it C++.

I was talking about verdigris for which you have to do #include "wobjectimpl.h"

> I'd be interested in knowing in which way it is no longer c++, considering Q_OBjECT, signals, slots, ... are just plain cpp macros (see qobjectdefs.h).

If it was pure C++ then I would not need to run a MOC to generate working executables.

While they are also plain CPP macros they have semantics which is only understood by the MOC and is not captured by CPP or C++. This additional semantics is the reason why they are used in the first place because if it was not for the additional semantics again you would not need MOC.