levzettelin

Contains some interesting observations. And sure, it makes sense to think about the design of such events. But to claim that "hooliganism", "youth culture", and "religious fanaticism" have nothing to do with crowd crushes seems absurd, and makes it feel like the author has an agenda. The way it's narrated reinforces this feeling.

Why do people find it so hard to grasp that there are multiple factors to such complex events?

Can someone explain what this does under the hood? Did find the text on their website very helpful. (Also, I don't know Rust)

With asyncio you can run multiple servers/clients/whatever in the same event-loop/thread/process already. Although, I don't understand what this library does at all, I don't think in the asyncio case you would need anything special. I've written tests for multiple distributed applications by using the asyncio approach in a relatively straightforward manner.

Thanks! That was interesting!

*British Museum

Ouch!

Heh, fair point regarding the "idea of fun". Disagree, though, that you have to enjoy the feeling of banging your head against hard problems (no one does). You just have believe that getting through it will make you better off eventually.

I actually have a PhD in linear algebra lol.

I don't think I was expressing much of an attitude in my comment. Just a factual statement that seeks to explain why the intervention is successful even though better alternatives clearly exist.

I don't think water should be flouridated and I don't think we should provide support for people lacking self control.

Does this say that at absolute zero temperature the bound is zero?

rofl

Some people lack the self control to use toothpaste regularly. For those people it's beneficial adding flouride to water.

Understood. I'm not arguing against providing housing for the homeless (although I'm also not sure I'd argue for it). My point is more that (as with everything else) one can look at "strongly rising rents" as either a cause or an effect. The left-wing point-of-view is that it's a cause, which then leads to homelessness and the problems associated with it. On the other hand, right-wing folks might be more inclined to think of it as an effect of some other problem (e.g., a populace in which an increasing percentage of people is unproductive). Both points-of-view strike me as having merit.

If everyone in a country feels valuable, at least some people in such a country must be delusional.

Countries with globally low crimes rates are racially homogeneous. (For the liberals: This doesn't mean that racially homogeneity implies low crime rates, of course.)

I can see why people would think the second point is "poor taste" (although I'm not sure if I agree), but definitely don't see why the first would be "questionable".

I think the problem is when people are incapable of grappling with their demons even in the privacy of their own homes. If given a place to stay, many people _choose_ to use it for non-productive things. Surely, exploding housing prices make things worse, but it's also easy enough to see why productive members of society want to distance themselves from this destructive behavior. After all, even the excellent shelter that you claim for NYC doesn't really seem to have resulted in paradise.

What's ethically wrong about this?

What's problematic about this? Why is this named a "problem"?

Does anyone know if RAII types will ever be a thing in Zig?

Looking at diffs on the command-line is cute and all, but for anything substantial I doubt this will ever be as good as using a proper GUI interface. I like "meld". You have to install it, then run

  git config --global alias.meld '!git difftool -t meld --dir-diff'

and after that you can do:

  git meld                   # like "git diff"
  git meld --staged          # like "git diff --staged"
  git meld branchA branchB   # like "git diff branchA branchB"

a) Either produce and consume oil or don't. If you do, you have to accept the ecological impact and you can't push a story about how your country is morally superior. Sorry, you have to find something else on the basis of which you can feel superior.

b) Just be Norway.

c) Just be Norway, but wage war on governments that refuse to buy oil.

Surely, higher oil prices would be good for the environment, though. While I don't think one necessarily has to agree with the arguments in the article, this is hardly an insane take.

The analogy is not perfect: it doesn't look like Norway is going to start a war to push its product. But I get the comparison: Norway looks pretty hypocritical here to me.

Also, people lie to themselves. Few people would probably want to see themselves as turning down a job simply because they already get enough from unemployment benefits.

I believe that things like this are simply unknowable by any rational take because we're dealing with an extraordinary complex system.

To make a statement like "These were the winners or losers of Brexit" you'd have to clone the universe at the point of the Brexit vote, change the outcome of the vote, and let this parallel universe run forward in time. Then you could compare that parallel universe to our universe and see who is better off and who not. This is, of course, not possible as far as we know and probably never will be.

Going in after some number of years and observing that certain parts of the population are better or worse off conflates a ridiculous number of things.

So, in conclusion, statements like "Brexit was bad/good for low/high income households in the UK" are always and exclusively made for political purposes. Which is OK. But let's not pretend this has anything to do with science.