gred

If you find yourself benchmarking JavaScript, you chose the wrong language.

I'm not familiar with the Romanian constitution, but due process is fundamental to the US constitution:

> No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The US constitution does not just "allow" for years of appeals, it guarantees your right to defend yourself through that process.

No, I'm taking a step back and saying that if the law provides for nullifying the election, it's a bad law. It's an even worse law if no due process is involved (i.e. "nothing has been proven against this candidate in court as of yet, but we're going to go ahead and nullify the election because he benefited from foreign interference, as far as we can tell based on what our intelligence services are telling us").

For what it's worth, it sounds like the runner-up candidate agrees:

> Lasconi condemned the court's ruling as "illegal" and "immoral", saying "today is the moment when the Romanian state has trampled on democracy".

Agreed. You do your best to counter and mitigate this type of foreign influence, but once people have voted, they have voted. Once you start to rationalize "but they only voted this way because X", it will be tempting to expand X in a way that disenfranchises and disempowers citizens.

Your reference [1] seems very confused about what it's trying to say and where it's trying to go, at least in terms of linking abortion to white supremacy. In fact, the fight for abortion access is closely tied to white supremacy (see e.g. the eugenics movements of the 1920s and 1930s in the US).

If you asked me whether I would want to pay 5x more for a house that reduces my likelihood of dying in a fire from 0.00427% to 0.00104%, I think I would choose to roll the dice (and maybe DIY install a $20 smoke detector).

1950: 6,405 fire deaths / 150,000,000 US pop = 0.00427%

2022: 3,490 fire deaths / 335,000,000 US pop = 0.00104%

Please read the guidelines. Assume good faith.

Nah, I would propose that people stop trying to "have it all", accept reality, and settle for one or the other (mainly one for men, and the other for women).

Nobody wants to hear that these days, if they ever did.

Or we could work with the natural order of things, rather than against it... nah, too crazy.

> I try to filter out political tweets.

> Seriously!? But don't you realize that ${political.outrage.tweet.792305}??

Your calculus ignores the hundreds of thousands of unborn lives that will be saved by allowing states to democratically establish their own abortion laws. Since you do not recognize the massive benefit, you see only the cost... I can understand your frustration, but perhaps you can understand why I don't share it.

Thank you for the example, I do hope that they clarify that gray area in the law. It's a tough situation; they were dealing with probabilities (sometimes infections occur, and sometimes these infections lead to death) rather than a clear-cut "we can save one of these two lives if we perform an abortion".

Sure, but will it still be considered an all-time high in a year? Will the alternative investment even beat inflation? All I'm saying is be careful. I have experience here, having parked money outside of the market for a few years because of a gut feeling that never materialized. If you don't need in the money in the short-term, the conventional wisdom is "time in the market beats timing the market".

Please take a day or ten to think your decision through as emotionlessly as possible. You could seriously affect your financial health if you make this decision based on feelings that may not align with reality.

Which laws, and which doctors?

Thanks for the explanation. But that sequence sounds more like "corruption -> increase taxes", or perhaps "cut taxes -> increase taxes"... not "cut costs -> increase taxes"?

Keep in mind that the left has been saying that the right has been voting against their own best interests for decades. I doubt that will change, especially if the apparent realignment along "class" lines turns out to be sustained.

> curbing government spending: increased taxes, as per evident of the UK government switch to labour

Can you elaborate on this one? I don't agree with most of your takes, but this one I just didn't understand.

Past performance is mixed: Trump 45 used mostly the carrot with the North Koreans, but mostly the stick with the Iranians and Chinese. I think it's pretty clear that Ukraine aid will decrease, but I'm not sure how much carrot vs stick will be applied to Russia.

I haven't seen that in Trump, myself. It seems to me that a lot of the Jan 6 discussion comes down to "what was he thinking when he did X?", and the tribes either give him the benefit of the doubt or assume the worst intentions, according to their various inclinations.

Yeah that one has more emphasis on the "cautiously" than the "optimistic" :-) Both parties have largely ignored this issue since the Tea Party movement, but it has been mentioned somewhat prominently in this campaign.

I think you're putting words in my mouth. IMO in this scenario the medical decision-making process should weigh both lives equally. Doctors make life-and-death decisions all the time, and I'm OK with that as long as one life is not considered "lesser". I understand that reasonable people can disagree on when life truly starts, though.

As a conservative American, I'm...

Cautiously optimistic about: curbing government spending, reducing illegal immigration, protecting unborn lives, restraining Iran + proxies, continuing economic growth

Nervous about: Ukraine, additional inflation caused by tariffs, ongoing political polarization

This sub-thread moved on from the original hypothesis as soon as innagadadavida put forward his non-empirical empirical example. Take it up with him, he may also enjoy your evaluation of his rationality.

This sequence replaces an infinite God with ~infinite time and then draws the wrong conclusion.

Ah, so you're one of the six Epsilon GC users :-)

Maybe AI risk is also higher in Asia and South Africa, and for the same reasons.

Interesting perspective. Some of it I agree with, but not all of it.

> There are no easy ways to build abstractions so it's all annotation upon annotation or back to design patterns of composition / inheritance.

What are your top 3 abstractions that are hard or impossible in Java?

> Do not even get me started with Gradle/Maven where declaring a custom task is a mini project.

Agree on Maven, but the criticism I most often hear for Gradle is that it actually makes it too easy to define custom tasks (mainly from people who like the standardization provided by the stricter Maven guardrails).

> [...] anything can be null, no easy way for structured concurrency and everything is mutable. Top that with verbosity [...]

Maybe check back in a couple of years, many of these are in the process of being addressed!

We used a similar setup, but opted for two sets of analog walkie talkies (instead of one set), so that we could fall back to the secondary set if the batteries ran out in the first set (we replaced the batteries in the two sets of walkie talkies at one-month offsets so that they wouldn't run out at the same time). We also had the two sets running on different channels, to avoid concurrent outages caused by unexpected radio interference. We did the math afterwards; overall availability of the child monitoring system was four nines. Satisfactory.

Seriously curious, what is your point of reference that makes this look bad?