mr_eel

I disagree with that premise. Rust is imperfect, and can seem obtuse when you begin using it. But the payoff is moving faster. It compiles, it works; modulo logic bugs. Less painful refactoring, less time spent chasing memory leaks, none of the bullshit memory bugs, no data races.

This isn't trivial stuff, and pays off day to day.

I also have to object to any argument that says something will be 'automagically' fixed in the future. It's a weak position based on something that _might_ happen.

The most galling thing is GCP support. I'm on a team which pays for google support and it is by far the most lax, useless nonsense I've ever encountered. They are literally no help.

Personally I'm always sensitive to systemic, toxic behaviour in programming communities and I'll jump on it if I can. But this ain't it. This is plain self-aggrandisement.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Otherwise, it's on point. Notions of female purity are a load of horseshit.

That the post misses this detail is curious considering that Elm is mentioned within the first paragraph; Elm has first-class support for behaviours, given that it's an FRP centric language.

I would suggest a closer study of Elm and FRP in general.

At this point, what prompted them is irrelevant. What is important is to remember that it's not OK to threaten to torture, rape and murder someone. Obviously. Your comment is yet another attempt to downplay their seriousness.

Life and dying is not a competition.

What a load of horse-piss. It happens all the time, but most journalists lack the hubris required to turn it into a story about themselves.

It's two things. One is to actually try and do some good via a spot in the Senate. Cynicism might tell you that's not right/too simple. Ignore that feeling. Some people do actually have ideals.

Secondly, it's a bit of good old shit-stirring. Certainly something we need in Australian politics.

If you don't think that's newsworthy, aaaaah, you're nuts.

It makes this assertion without offering any numbers. This is called making-shit-up.

It's not illegal, but it's not ethical.

I find it hard to be amused by a government's witty-japes-on-the-internet. People shouldn't be amused, they should be insulted. This is not humanity you're seeing. It's the thin veneer that gets scraped over bureaucracy and business-as-usual politics.

I would suggest that if the author is going to make a website devoted to it they should at least learn to distinguish them.

That said, the basic thrust of the paper seems right to me — although I need to give it a closer reading. Essentially, wind power is a poor choice for the UK. Little open land, not a heck of a lot of wind, a political environment which results in communities getting bought off with govt money.

So, context is important. If you want to see successful wind power generation, look at Germany, or a better example; South Australia.

Of course you haven't my dears, because you don't suffer it, you're blind to it.

Bullshit! It's a basic fact that most people don't like being routinely belittled and side-lined. That's got nowt to do with gender. The difference is that women suffer it more often and gosh should they have the temerity to complain, suffer a further avalanche of abuse under the guise of cool, logical criticism.

"emotion trumping it on a political correctness card"

Political correctness is just short-hand for "don't be racist, don't be sexist, don't be a prick". Pretty simple.

It's naive to think that politics and emotion can somehow be kept out of any human endeavour. So, the _logical_ course is to have a open discussion about how we can maintain respect and encourage all who are interested and able to contribute. That's what is best for the field.

You've got such an undeveloped idea of gender equality that when someone directly talks about it, you want to label it 'sideline histronics'.

You, yes YOU, the individual using the handle etherael are part of the problem.

The abuse of the EAW and general excessive response are reason enough for to fight it.

As for salvaging credibility; a vicious media campaign had begun against him long before the extradition proceedings reached these dramatic heights — it's not a conspiracy either, it's just a lot of journalists are pricks.

I doubt going to Sweden would have changed that.

So, it's very easy to say he 'probably… made to face a comparatively light penalty', but when getting that judgement wrong means trumped-up espionage charges, it's a very different proposition altogether.

Also, I must say this is a poor choice of title for a HN post. It's emotive, a generalisation and doesn't actually reflect the actual content of the link.

You obviously disagree with Jeremy. Fine. But posts like this are weak.