rangerelf

Which Spanish?

"Saca las manzanas verdes del refrigerador"

Seems like the first example, vs:

"Del refrigerador, saca las manzanas verdes"

That sounds a bit stilted to me.

Speak for yourself, I've always loved Python's list comprehension syntax, it makes ALL the sense. For ME.

It's a question of ergonomics, just like my favorite chair is not going to be your favorite chair for whatever reason, programming language constructs that bug you doesn't mean it'll bug anyone else.

Your foreach() example bugs the hell out of me, for example. But I'm not campaigning to have it erased from existence, I just don't use languages that model their syntax like that.

Exactly. I still remember about this "revolutionary" querying language being designed, that would allow for non-technical people to perform complex queries and reports from databases.

People: stop trying to mangle SQL "because it would be better..."; nah, SQL is supposed to be the "better" already. The idiosyncrasies it has is because it was designed to be kinda-sorta conversational, modeled as an english language query.

Then the secondary party would have lower tax level.

I think you're sowing the seeds to undermine your own arguments, because, literally, everything of social utility is a fiction: money, law, "private property", contracts, and so forth.

All of them are needed for society to function, but at the same time all of them are convenient fictions for us to build upon.

So, zero. You yourself: zero.

You completely ignored the premise of the question.

You already mentioned this higher in the thread, no need to repeat yourself.

For the record I agree with the grandparent post's question: at least, gov is _supposed_ to be controlled by the citizenry through elections, corporations are not. I can have ("should have") visibility into what the government is doing, corporations can hide (and do hide) as much real information as they can and there's no way for me to get to it.

Whether it's naive of me to think so or not is not what is being discussed here.

"Could be...", "what if...", "maybe it's..." ...

So much wishy-washiness and absolutely zero concrete information.

I don't think you're proving any points.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain how that's in any remote way equivalent??

"hurr durr lets ban cars now". PLEASE.

Unlike social media, to drive a car you need a license, you need insurance, and if you run over a kid you most likely will go to prison. Or maybe you weren't driving your car, but it was unsecured, or had a mechanical malfunction. You are still responsible and you will in one way or another have to pay.

But, you can create ads on social media targeting minors with toxic messaging, and nobody bats a damn eye.

It's about time that online commercial endeavors, like ad networks, get reigned in and have rules applied to them, same as for other activities.

This is beautiful, thank you so much for sharing it.

This part is what many have a problem with I think: "...When a company needs to make decisions to increase their margin..."; why? Why do you _NEED_ to increase your margin? You can increase your profit amount without increasing your margin by extending your customer base, by being smarter about expenses, by being a savvier customer to your online infrastructure, etc. But what is the _NEED_ (emphasis is mine) to, literally, squeeze that rock harder to get more blood out of it, therefore ensuring it will crumble in the future?

The only thing I can think of is that there is no care for said future, "I'll squeeze as much as I can now, I got mine, so screw everyone else".

I think you're giving them an unnecessary pass, the incentives are completely in their favor: don't screen ads, make money off ads that are frauds, scams, age-inappropriate, etc... wait for "someone" to report those ads as such; meanwhile, keep making money off them, and the scammers/frauds/etc keep making marks.

The human-friendly way would be to screen ads before airing them, which means hiring teams to do the screening; have an appropriate legal language in the ad screening section saying that ads may be rejected for "Reasons" which will be explained in the rejection note, and the rejection can be appealed upon which another person will deal with the rejection review process.

It's not a difficult problem, but it gets in the way of making money hand over fist.

Nobody "prefers" it (psychopaths need not apply), but against a regime where literally their prevention method to getting replaced is "bloodshed", what is your suggestion?

Please don't conflate issues.

Retroactively applying laws to target your political enemies has nothing to do with censorship laws (except using them as an excuse) and everything to do with corruption and authoritarianism.

Donald Trump promised to prosecute everyone he holds a grudge against if he was elected president again, and the USA has constitutionally enshrined free speech laws.

One as a citizen has visibility - or can have visibility- into the government's working, you DO vote, right?

Private citizens and companies, not so much.

I disagree. Drunk driving is treated like a joke, some harmless "Oops", but it's not.

Also it's a personality fair: someone who is ok with driving drunk is a candidate for worse things. I for one think it's a good thing to keep their biometrics on hand for _WHEN_ that happens.

And if people are found to be abusing this information, prosecute them for it.

That's not a problem caused by the existence of the database, but by the presence of people abusing it. Prosecute those people instead of throwing out a legitimately useful tool.

Why "scary"? Why is this "unrelated" if it's a police work database? It's a known statistic that many are both repeat offenders and opportunistic, why should markers --like fingerprints-- be actively expunged?

Why the scare mongering?

Exactly like that.

It doesn't matter, something will be found that will coerce them into talking. Nobody is an island. Everyone has a breaking point, if it's not rubber hoses, it's socks full of rocks, or it's bottles of mineral water, or any number of methods. Don't think for a second that someone hasn't thought of a better way to get information out of somebody else.

I wish it would revolutionize spelling.

It bugs me to no end that they (those that give those instructions) are normalizing this.

I disagree. "X" does those things as part of a profit generating enterprise; if those things affect the greater population then they absolutely should be disclosed. And before someone says "What about Meta? What about Google? What about Youtube?" Yep, them too. They should all disclose the basis of their moderation decisions. Because they're used to steer public opinion. Because it's been demonstrated that they have been used to manipulate public perception to the detriment of groups of people. Because people have died from misinformation.

And downright dumb-sounding.

"Todes"

Please stop.

Most of all those are gui based, when running a small Slackware setup without X none of those are available.

Vim in '95 was a breath of fresh air: improved feature set over plain vi and still zippy.

What was a "normal" editor in '08?

After trying out finger-twister with Emacs, vim was a breath of fresh air, and had better features than plain "vi", like it was improved or something.

Now, how do I save and exit?

Way over quoted, and it didn't represent the incentives companies have to screw over their own customers in the pursuit of profits.

Maybe it's both: malice to kick off the effort and incompetence because they got found out.

It's not "money" that's the root of all evil, it's "the love for money". It completely changes the meaning of the quote.

> So maybe we should consider re-working HIPPA so the information can be used by the good guys instead.

Who are these "good guys" you speak so highly of? CA gov? FL gov? Federal gov? FBI? Planned Parenthood? Some church?

I'm curious about these mythical "good guys" that you, the NRA, and other people with an agenda repeatedly handwave about.