prairiedogg

What could go wrong?

I hope this comment gets as much appreciation as it deserves.

The best way I ever heard this sentiment phrased was "the most radio friendly single on the album had the refrain 'I want to fuck you like an animal'".

Pretty heat machine.

Economics are not the only considerations at play. Even if economic considerations do dominate, the social safety nets of many European countries offer attractive alternatives to their US counterparts, even as they existed before Trump. For instance, in the deeply flawed US health-care system you risk medical bankruptcy in the case of serious illness or accidents even if you do have insurance due to policy limits. Insurers will fight tooth and nail to prevent paying out claims. Some folks with chronic illnesses don't want to be tied to their high-paying jobs just so they can have good insurance and some healthy folks want a health insurance policy that won't disappear when they need it most.

Didn't mean for this to be a wall of text. Basically, money's not everything, and even if it was, it could still make sense for a lot of folks from the US to want to move to Europe.

China has never been a place, historically, that has welcomed foreigners as anything other than short-term visitors. To the extent that it has, those foreigners have become Chinese (Manchu, Mongol - and the "welcome" there is uh… being used pretty liberally). From a legal and policy perspective, there are very few paths to long-term residency in China for people who are not of Chinese descent, and of the nominal few there are, there are only a tiny handful of foreigners who live there for longer than a decade or so. By law you can't become a citizen of the PRC without being of Chinese descent. Chinese people are wonderful and on an individual level are incredibly warm and open to all the depths and facets of human relationships with non-Chinese foreigners. As a society, China has, in general, never been a particularly welcoming place for folks who aren't Chinese. I don't see any indication of that changing any time soon. Would love to be wrong.

> more digestible

I see what you did there.

No one said anything about a conspiracy. From TFA:

"In addition to a base of far-right wing support, which makes up 15 percent of the population, the AfD is attracting a protest vote that takes it to slightly more than 20 percent support. This is driven by dissatisfaction with migration policy and a general fear of societal crisis."

I'm curious where I could find an example of someone saying that working hard and being punctual are white supremacist.

I was a Gnucash user for a decade before switching to beacount (https://github.com/beancount/beancount). Can't see myself ever going back.

> No, it's that if you DON'T work hard, you WON'T get it.

Depends on how much you start with.

Open source software really _has_ penetrated every niche.

Not a native Chinese speaker, but I am a proficient speaker of Chinese as a second language. No dog in this fight except to mention that "天真" does have a "sum of its parts" aspect for me. I sometimes think of it in relation to the Chinese word for "congenital" (天生, tiānshēng). In the case of congenital, the 天 (tiān) part is better translated as "heaven", "God", "fate" or "nature", and for me, carries aspects of all of those English words. 生 (shēng) in this context means "born" as in "was born with". Think "congenital defect", a defect that you had before birth, which you could only blame God, or nature for.

So 天真 (tiānzhēn), along the same lines, roughly translated, means "then sense of reality that you have when you are born or which you are gifted by nature", unsophisticated and naive. Don't know if that makes sense, but I've always thought about these two words together and felt like I understood them better through context.

Whether there is more corruption in Africa or the United States probably depends on qualifying statements like "Where in Africa?", "Where in the United States?", and importantly "What constitutes corruption?"

The United States and Africa are both enormous land masses. While the United States is nominally a single country, it has enormous differences in culture from region to region, and even between different populations in the same region. Africa has lots of different countries, climates, cultures, etc. "There is more corruption in Africa than the United States" is too general a statement to be meaningful.

You can make meaningful, specific statements about the corruption in each place. I've never been to Africa, but two glaring and public examples of what I would call corruption in the United States from recent years are:

- the current President openly patronizes his own businesses using public funds, in what appears to be a clear violation of emoluments laws. The parts of the government responsible for ensuring the executive branch follows these laws have failed to engage in oversight or curtail this practice in any meaningful way.

- law enforcement officials routinely take property from individuals (under the widely adopted practice of civil asset forfeiture) without charging the individuals with any crime, in what appears to be a clear violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution.

There is corruption in America. It is really blatant and clear. The extent to which you experience it may vary, but at a minimum, reasonable people have to agree that it exists, and it exists right on the surface for everyone to see.

Clarifying question: are you referring to emotional labor as labor which is emotionally taxing for the producer, or labor which produces a positive emotional effect on the consumer / receiver?

Now I'm getting the feels masondixon - thanks for being so open to a discussion.

Hi rubberstamp!

I disagree that this thread is "just nitpicking each other" - I think it's been both educational and civil. For instance, when masondixon learned that Reagan had a political career before his presidency, masondixon thanked dbmikus for pointing it out. It's hard to find that level of candor on an internet discussion board - and masondixon seemed to want a genuine dialog that was free of the ad-hominem attacks that he or she had apparently been experiencing on other sites.

In regards to your "argument", I don't find it convincing:

> My argument is you are as good as any statesman so long as you have a working brain.

I disagree. My brain works reasonably well, but I don't consider myself fit to fill the office of the presidency - for a wide variety of reasons. I have no understanding of large portions of the world or even of the United States itself. I don't know how economics works on a macro scale. Just as I would never hire a person whose brain worked well, but had never written a line of code to fill the most important engineering role in my company, I would never say that just because my brain worked well, that I would be a good statesman or a good choice for president of the United States.

> Don't you get excited at the prospect of a leader not beholden to any special interests at all?

On paper that does sound exciting, but it's not something that I want at any cost. In specific, I don't want it badly enough to elect Donald Trump as president.

OK, I'll accept that my analogy isn't very good.

So your argument is that someone who is a good private executive will also be a good public executive?

Let's accept that premise as given.

Is Donald Trump a good private executive?

Ok - thanks for clarifying.

I don't think that this assertion strengthens an argument that voting for Trump is better than voting for any other candidate.

I would argue that someone who does not have experience in public office should not be considered a viable candidate for president of the United States, much as I believe that someone who has not driven a car before should not be considered to be a driver in the Indianapolis 500 race. I don't think it's "worth trying out" someone who has never practiced a surgery to do open heart surgery on me.

I believe that a certain level of experience and track record in governance is a reasonable, basic criteria for the highest elected office in the United States. An example would be a governorship, term in congress, or a term a state legislature, something that provides a record of voting on issues that I care about, for instance - or displays some kind of governance style. Trump fails to meet this criteria.

It sounds like you and I agree that Trump implies more uncertainty, the difference in our perspectives is that you are comfortable with the uncertainty and I am not.

Is that a fair characterization of our positions based on this limited conversation?

Hi tomp!

I was trying to summarize masondixon's stated points about the negative effect electing "statesmen" have had. masondixon listed:

- two wars

- Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS

- Syria is a humanitarian nightmare

- we had a huge financial crash

- and terrorism is on the rise

I thought "crisis" could fairly characterize any one of these, but what I consider the substance of my response was what followed, when I asked masondixon to clarify his or her logical argument and extended it by analogy to other common points of public concern, like medicine and transportation safety.

I think you're correct to point out that "starting a war" and "avoiding crisis" are substantively different and accept (what I perceive to be) your criticism.

Hi masondixon!

> But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise.

So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis?

Would it be fair then to say that because doctors have failed to cure patients, that we should stop having doctors treat the sick? Or that because people with drivers licenses have crashed cars, that we should allow people without them to drive cars?

Could you get away with allowing folks to manually paste in the HTML of their own linkedin page, or perhaps upload a PDF version of their linked in page?

Are you scraping the page for input params? Would it be possible to just expose an API (or web forms that point there) to let folks put in those parameters manually?

And the Objective-C community thanks you for it, Michael. We wouldn't be software developers, however, if we weren't hopeless pedants who lose the forest for the trees and point out that goshdarnblocksyntax.com is MISSING the amazing attention-to-detail favicon from the original domain. Where's the craftsmanship?

I'm never paying for this website again.

"Todd McKinnon, the C.E.O. of Okta, a cloud-computing company, told me that top engineers are worth way more than what we’re paying them.'"

Relieved to hear that Todd!

"something that manages your expression experiments and the context harnesses they need"

This is the exact purpose of tests.

I've been pairing with ruby / rails developers since 2010 and coming from statically typed languages, it's unbelievable how much time gets spent playing "guess the method name". Even in rich IDEs like RubyMine, the utter lack of context in any given file in rails leaves programmers typing their best guess of a method name, running the tests, rinse, repeat.

This solution, while creative and laudable, solves a problem that shouldn't exist. It should either be solved by IDE/tooling in a dynamically typed language or by the compiler in a statically typed language. Stop guessing and let your tools do the hard work of remembering method names for you.

Reminds me of pixelist: http://www.pixeli.st/

Step 1: Create landing page with call to action to measure interest

Step 2: Post on hacker news