While factually correct, a more elegant wording to express this would be “colleagues from India and China”.
811 karma · joined July 14, 2015
While factually correct, a more elegant wording to express this would be “colleagues from India and China”.
Exactly. I think there should be a blanket negative to customs, practices or systems that objectively cause harm. It would be reprehensible to see someone try to defend, say, Female Genital Mutilation… using “Chesterton’s Fence”. Just don’t fucking do it to people; stop doing it right now, the “why” might be for anthropologists to ponder at a later date.
I will wait for the project to be open sourced (as per their stated intention in their FAQ) just for that extra bit of peace of mind, and reluctantly suffer with Safari in the meanwhile.
If there isn’t such an example, then perhaps software is a category of its own and thus its problems can’t be solved by legacy regulatory tooling.
Wow, that also nicely explains how colonisation & impoverishment of some human groups is necessary in the current framework, so that high HDI can be achieved in other human groups (which then explains various historical facts).
This makes space exploration and attempts of automated resource extraction from celestial objects a noble goal, something that can achieve world peace (assuming the results are distributed).
I’ve never quite understood why that’s an important metric for considering processing. Does it have an actual impact on the computability of something, or is it just a visualisation to help human minds scale the grasp of something?
Wonder how “Focus” went under “Christian Books & Bibles”, though.
The web is a clear counter-example.