samdoesnothing

To the type of nerds who crash out about a git hosting provider and publicly insult other developers, moving off GitHub might even be more meaningful than whatever MLK did.

I wouldn't even call it politeness, it's more like basic human decency. Would Andrew Kelly appreciate it if the LLVM guys publicly wrote a blog post calling the Zig maintainers losers and monkeys? Just screams of immaturity, which isn't surprising seeing their political views.

The people at the top don't have a victim mentality because they're successful. However, there are a lot of people who aren't at the top, who aren't doing great, but on the basis of their gender are told that they deserve dispreferential treatment because there's more of their gender at the top of society. I don't see how that makes them evil. Perhaps I'm just totally misunderstanding your point though.

> Military service is also a benefit that women don't get, too. They don't get to make the connections in the military that would help them along in their careers.

They can volunteer if they wanted those supposed benefits. Seems weird to try to make conscription sound like it has positives when it's just purely negative.

> Shouldn't you wait until your country is half run by women before claiming oppression? Until your boss and CEO are as likely to be women as men?

This is an overly simplistic view of "oppression". Do you think that men as a whole somehow benefit from there being an over representation of their gender at the top of society? That despite struggling to survive, because we share the same gender that we aren't suffering or that we can't be oppressed?

It's like people blame all men for the actions of our ancestors and want to take revenge or something. It's really weird.

That being said I don't think at the present moment it's possible to have a society without some form of government, so then the question becomes "what do we do about it", and I think the answer is to limit the scope of political intervention and power as much as possible.

   class LoadingState extends State {}
   class ResultState extends State {}
   class ErrorState extends State {}
   const state: State = new LoadingState

Also you can so easily go overboard with TS and design all sorts of crazy types and abstractions based on those types that become a net negative in your codebase.

However it does feel really damn nice to have it catch errors and give you great autocomplete and refactoring tooling.

> FBI Agents, White Supremacist Leader Engage in Deadly Standoff

> Police Fire on Black Protesters in Pretoria Suburb; Deaths Reported

> Something about Jewish people

> Communism

I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same eh.

The issue is that as the context expands, we lose the ability to make accurate predictions. To some extent we can't even predict our own lives although we try our best. When you expand that to the size of a corporation it's mostly just guessing. Corporations fail all of the time. When we expand that to a society, we are just guessing for everything but the most simple of predictions.

1. Simple. For example, “Demand curves slope downward.” The more complicated a theory is, the more ways there are for it to go wrong.

2. Accepted by experts. For example, there is a broad consensus in economics that protectionism is undesirable. If a theory is well-justified, then the great majority of reasonable and intelligent people will usually come to accept the theory, once they understand the arguments for it.

3. Non-ideological. Theories that have an ideological flavor and that call forth strong emotions tend to be pseudo-knowledge–for example, the theory that behavioral differences between men and women are entirely due to socialization. Reality is unlikely to conform to ideology.

4. Weak. For instance, we do not know that free markets are always perfectly efficient. We can say only that free markets are usually approximately efficient.

5. Specific and concrete. We can be much more confident in a concrete claim such as “Ted Bundy’s murders were wrong” than in an abstract theory such as “It is always wrong to initiate violence against another person.”

6. Supported by appropriate evidence. For example, the claim “violent entertainment increases violent crime” cannot be known without empirical evidence. In this case, a study based on a large, random sample would be appropriate, rather than, say, a few anecdotes.

7. Undefeated by counter-evidence. If there is a large quantity of evidence against P, or if one does not know whether there is such counter-evidence, then one does not know that P. For example, if one has read several studies supporting gun control while having read none of the literature on the other side, then one cannot claim to know whether gun control is desirable.

The claim "Leaded gasoline should be banned" reasonably fits most of these requirements, thus it's probably a relatively safe intervention with upside.

> From 1970 to 1981, restrictions were added at an average rate of about 24,000 per year. From 1981 to 1985, that pace slowed to an average of 620 restrictions per year, before accelerating back to 18,000 restrictions per year from 1985 to 1995. A decrease of 27,000 restrictions occurred from 1995 to 1996—3.2 percent of the 1995 total—and in the 20 years since then, regulation has grown steadily by about 13,000 restrictions per year. These periods do not match up neatly with any president or party; rather, regulatory accumulation seems to be a bipartisan trend—or perhaps a bureaucratic trend independent of elected officials’ ideologies.

https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/regula...