2,219 karma · joined July 30, 2015
Empathy and benefit of the doubt for billionaires who vacation in Fiji and whose kids get a medevac flight to a major city when something goes wrong would look a bit more sane if those were commonly afforded to normal people as well. Which they aren't.
It's not, though, and the fact that people keep repeating this meme shows that most developers don't even bother thinking about issues they face beyond superficial blamesplaining.
The reason inheritance causes so many issues in languages like Java is because they are statically typed and also use classes as types[1]. Classes must be somewhere in the inheritance tree, hence you are forced into some place of that tree. To make things worse, Java has many keywords that restrict what inheritor of a class can do (private, final, etc).
Inheritance is much less troublesome in, say, Smalltalk, since the language is dynamically typed. If someone expects you to implement Foo, you can (almost always) just implement its relevant methods without explicitly extending the class. Thus, a whole host of annoying scenarios simply does not occur.
--
[1] BTW, this breaks one of the fundamental commandments of classic OOP: you should not depend on implementation details of an object, only on its message protocol. Obviously, it's impossible to be independent of implementation details if some library forces you to use a particular class.
[1] https://articlesofunity.org/2020/09/press-release-for-our-tw...
> The utterance emerged in February 2019 from Fox & Friends presenter Pete Hegseth
This is in the first paragraph. Before the subject is properly introduced and defined, before the reader even begins processing what the article says about it, the author encourages the audience to think about how barbarous and primitive Fox News is, which is guaranteed to tint everything that follows.
This is a propaganda technique and it's becoming ubiquitous in modern writing.
"Free" documentation is often designed to give you barely enough info to start using their products, but not much more. And we're kind of used to this by now. MDN, FreeBSD hanbook or the original set of Smalltalk books stand as exceptions and reminders what things could look like if motivations were different.
This is a ridiculous mischaracterization of what Jonathan Blow was talking about.
Here is the full presentation. Very much worth watching in its entirety and thinking about:
This is gaslighting. That's not how blue checkmarks work in practice. They are a completely synthetic credibility token that is distributed by Twitter based on whose opinions it wants to boost. That is it.
If verified accounts were about authenticity, two things would be true:
1. Anyone would be able to verify their account after completing certain steps. There would probably be a fee, but no "high public interest" requirement (because it's an obviously gameable and subjective criteria).
2. Verification would never be revoked.
Like I said, LEDs seem pointless in this design.
Also, I don't know of many US-based keyboard manufacturers, but I know of these guys:
Their 10-keyless version inspired by Model M is $120 dollars. Yes, it's pretty barebone, but that's exactly my point.
Edit: https://www.wasdkeyboards.com
Assembled in US, $170.
Cut out the USB hub and seemingly useless RGB LEDs, bring down the price a bit and maybe I'll bite.
I do appreciate features like N-key rollower and programmable firmware, as well as being assembled in US. Ambivalent about aluminum chassis. (I.e don't mind it, but wouldn't mind good plastic either.)
One of the most impressive languages you've never heard about.
One company decides to do something stupid and you expect millions of website owners to scurry and add junk to their headers to create a "mitigation"? This is nuts.
This is a browser problem, not a website problem.
>This is only slightly less true for books and optical media. You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it.
When I pay for a book in a bookstore, part of the money goes towards maintaining the system that produces and distributes books. The system includes various parties, like printers, publishers, distributors, books stores and so on. It's far more than 10% and there is nothing wrong with paying for a reasonably working distributed system like that.
Replacing all of those companies with a single megacorp like Amazon or Apple is not going to result in the same system running cheaper. It will create an entirely different system. Over time that new system will shift to publish entirely different type of content, it will have an entirely different relationship with consumers and authors and it will have completely different effect on the society at large. Given what I see already, I seriously doubt those changes will skew towards the positive.
How much of what you pay for "digital rentals" goes to creators and towards running the actual infrastructure to download/consume media? This is a questions a lot of companies don't want you to be thinking about.
More generally, it all comes down to the questions brilliantly formulated by Neal Postman:
https://strawdogs.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/neil-postmans-6-q...
Unlike, say, nightly riots in Portland, that require neither monitoring nor federal response of any kind?
It would be one thing if posts like the one above honestly argued for some necessary level of general surveillance in good faith. It's entirely different story, however, when they sneakily imply a certain set of hyper-partisan assumptions.
If you can't demonstrate to me that surveillance of social media is politically neutral and aims at preventing harm, rather than suppressing speech through harassment, I'd rather have no surveillance of that kind at all.
Edit:
It's bizarre that despite all these "concerns" about social media there is no investigation (that I know of) into the origins of the whole QAnon degeneracy.