tathougies

What I want from an editor:

1. no code completion -- rarely works well. To get it to work well, it requires set up, and when I start a project, I don't want to waste time setting anything up. Also, doesn't work for interesting things, like code generation. I realize most programmers rarely do anything like that, but I do.

2. Customizability -- emacs is super-customizable. Lisp is easy to understand and you can basically do anything.

3. No mouse -- I'm faster just using keyboard shortcuts

4. Runs in terminal or graphical -- When I ssh into a machine, I want to be able to use Emacs through the terminal

5. Orthogonal user-interface -- In Emacs, everything is a buffer. I can use the same interface to navigate through Emacs 'configuration' as I can through my code. I can use the same interface to navigate through the Emacs terminal emulator as my code as well. This is amazing. Contrast this to 'newer' editors like Sublime or Eclipse, where the configuration dialog, git interface, etc, are all custom UIs. To understand why this makes a difference compare and contrast the experience of using a Web-based App via a browser to the feeling of using a Native App. The native app may 'feel' nicer when you look at it, but nothing beats the consistency of the browser interface (back button, copy/paste integration, links, etc.). There's a reason HTML based interfaces are so popular

6. Universal support -- emacs runs on basically everything. So does VIM (Probably more than emacs)

7. Support for large numbers of libraries, languages, etc -- I've rarely found any new language, framework, etc, which doesn't have support in Emacs. With some changes to my init.el, the package is installed (thanks to use-package), and I'm done.

8. Easy dot files -- I have several computers. To set up emacs on a new computer, I just copy my .elisp directory.

In other words, the advantages of Emacs and VIM over other editors are:

1. Text-based interfaces 2. Universal support 3. Customizability 4. Adherence to the UNIX philosophy (everything represented as text)

I would have posted sooner, but Hacker News bars me from posting too often. Here is the report, with an e-mail image:

https://www.rebelnews.com/international_elecion_observers_ba...

I would have posted sooner, but Hacker News bars me from posting too often. Here is the report, with an e-mail image:

https://www.rebelnews.com/international_elecion_observers_ba...

So I understand all this but I'm wondering if you can explain to me how I as a lay person am expected to differentiate your supposed chain of events from what the news tells me are tell tale signs of voter fraud.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190

Yes that is why I comment here too. So that people know there are others like them. Don't care if I lose the karma.

Everything's a legal vacuum if you have a big enough gun.

Edit: I'm not saying how things should be... I'm just pointing out the obvious

Don't understand why you are being downvoted. Why can we not agree that single party rule in any city, state, or nation, is simply a recipe for corruption? Look, I'm a registered republican, but I too would be uncomfortable if literally every office in my state were held by the republicans for decades. Meanwhile, most cities have decades of rule by the same party. Many times the races are not even contested meaningfully.

Yes, this is a major problem. One party rule is what we should expect from 3rd world countries like China. Having a single party on the ballot is what I expect from countries like North Korea (which does have voting believe it or not, just with one candidate on the ballot), not America.

Why is this idea so resisted? It doesn't even mean that we need to elect republicans. We can elect the Greens for all I care. However, there is a huge problem when all political positions are held by people that know the same power brokers, the same political party machine, hold the same ideologies, are unwilling to go against their 'side', etc.

Oh and BTW, remember that Hacker News is filled with rational, non-biased people /s.

You can condemn violent groups like Antifa that vandalize and destroy private property in the public right of way that makes the entire city look like a mess.

Invest in opportunity zones, and support legislation, that expands them and their incentives. Push to democratize access to these kinds of funds so that more institutional capital can be built from smaller investors.

This kind of moral equivocation is why our society is so divided.

Biden has a transition website: buildbackbetter.com

That isn't a declaration of victory?

In my home state of Oregon, ballot results are released pretty much immediately, because the ballot deadline for receipt is 8 pm on election day. The same was true of California when I lived there. Why are the rules suddenly changed? Did no one foresee that this would cause one of the worst elections in American history?

> Because a process that had never been trialed in many places was used at the national scale.

Sure, I get that, but didn't anyone foresee that this will call into question the legitimacy of the election.

To recap, both candidates have claimed victory at this point, despite no major media outlet calling enough electoral votes.

This could have been prevented by simply not changing things at the last minute. Instead, we've set the stage for an extremely contested, ugly election. There is no landslide, as everyone expected. This is the worst possible outcome.

Why? This constant finding of ballots, along with the allegations of not being allowed to observe the counting by international election watching groups, and the withholding of counts (see AZ and NV), makes the process seem extremely opaque. This is what I expect of a 3rd world country, not America. It was not difficult to get your ballot in on time. They've been out for weeks.

Why do the misreport them? Why don't we know?

And I also don't really understand how mail can arrive later. In my state of Oregon which has mail-in only voting, ballots must arrive by 8PM on election day. That's it. Why do other states allow it to go past that? This is crazy. It's election day, not week.

Why do the estimated vote counts keep going up? Why has this process dragged on for days. Where do they keep losing ballots? Why isn't there a deadline? Why are only these states still counting?

Great resource BTW!

This is nothing to do with originalism. Please don't strawman complicated viewpoints.

> a deep failure of lawmaking.

The real deep failure of lawmaking is telling millions of people what the rules are and then changing them because some elites decided that the proles were getting too successful.

My parents fled their home country for freedom of religion in the USA. Many other immigrant groups have as well.

That's great, but sharing my experience was not a call for others to add their own experience or to critique mine. If you want to share, please share on the top-level comment.

A study would require us to run an experiment that takes two groups of families that are equivalent along some metrics, and then forcibly separates one subgroup, while letting the other remain intact. Obviously this is extremely unethical.

So no, there are no studies directly on this, just as there are no studies on how divorce has no effect on children. The fact is that when the first decision was made to allow no-fault divorce, such a system had never existed in the Western world and it eschewed thousands of years of practice. This demanding of scientific study for every little social detail is a major problem. Previous generations would have resorted to philosophy, rather than demand empirical data. CS Lewis's book 'The Abolition of Man' goes into why demanding empirical data for every little social policy, rather than listening more to tradition, is both self-contradictory as well as dangerous. So I'll refer you to that as the best 'study'.

In the grand scheme of history, the burden of proof is still on the people promoting no-fault divorce to produce a valid study showing that society is better off with no-fault divorce.

My viewpoint does not require as much proof since it is -- still today -- the typical state of western society.

At this point, no-fault divorce has been a thing for about 50 years in the USA, which is barely a blip in the grand scheme of history. In many parts of Europe, it is still not a thing, or much younger.

Suppose today I decided to raise my daughter without looking at her in the eye anymore. I made this decision without any data to either validate or invalidate my claim that raising her in such a way would make her a better person (how could there be such a study today?). However, since it's more comfortable for me to not make eye contact, it seems that this is my right as her father.

Now obviously, most people would say that that sounds cruel and inhuman. But really, it must appear no different to us than the idea of no-fault divorce would have appeared to our forerunners.

Now imagine that if a large subset of society made the same choice I did with my daughter, but many kept the normal view such that it was still normal to look children in the eye. Still, a large enough group of people didn't. Now suppose that 50 years later, after mental health and attachment problems appear in greater numbers in the populace, someone who questions why some no longer look our children in the eye is asked for a 'study' to show that looking them in the eye would fix things? Certainly such a demand should be met with incredulity.

So that's my response to you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and society is still waiting for the extraordinary evidence that no-fault divorce does not increase mental health problems in children. Otherwise, the original claim deserves to be prevented -- at least temporarily -- from influencing our social policy.

EDIT: downvotes should explain why, otherwise I interpret it as someone who disagrees but cannot formulate a cohesive argument to critique mine, which is rather sad really.

> That's simply the continuation of a societal expectation that women will do the 'mothering.'

You are ignoring biological reality. The reason why this happens in 'hetero' couples is that the woman has an obvious physical relationship with the child. This doesn't happen in gay male couples because neither of the fathers can have this relationship. In lesbian couples, it's common for the non-bio mother to not only feel alienated, and even to do less childcare than the biological one (https://www.thespermbankofca.org/sites/default/files/1998_Ch...). Lesbian adoptive couples are more likely to share childcare equally, just like gay male ones of any kind, or heterosexual adoptive families.

My wife and I used to be really into this idea of parental equality in all things until we had a baby biologically. Now I obviously love my daughter, but there are some things only a mother can do, like nurse her, and this forms a special bond between mother and child. The fact of the matter is that men have to work harder to get that close of a relationship with their child that the mother is predisposed to. However, even then, the most devoted father would likely still see their child want to nurse when they get hurt or feel scared, until the child reaches 2-3 years of age. This is normal. Nursing is meant to do this, and although it's a physical act, it has real emotional consequence in both mother and child. My heart breaks hearing my daughter cry, but my nipples do not leak milk. It's not even that I couldn't calm her when she's mad, but the fact is that it would take significantly longer. Meanwhile, the child will be screaming and upset, and I should be willing to do this in the name of equality? On the other hand, handing her off to nurse with mom calms her instantly, as nature dictates.

To me it seems cruel to force my view of equality on the child by forcing them to remain terrified, frightened, anxious, and sad all because I want to feel as important as their mother, even while mom is right there. Is this unequal? Certainly. But it is the only humane decision in our opinions.

That is not to say we should think less of paternal love or the paternal relationship (especially since research shows that dads play a very important role in socializing their children into larger society), but rather that we should not see the inequality between mom and dad especially with young children and attribute it to some nefarious social force, instead of millenia of biological reality.

I don't understand political anxiety. In the United States, elections even of the president, do not ultimately matter a whole lot. There are several layers of government and several governmental co-equal bodies such that the election of any one person is not super important. And that's the way it should be:

https://reason.com/2020/11/02/make-elections-not-matter-so-m...

Well as long as the press doesn't mention any of the banned topics and people only gather to support things that aren't banned they are free. All people are free you see but some are more free than others

How can you claim the press is free when you already claimed there are certain topics you cannot broach? Meanwhile the us press is so free they can publish completely anonymous articles critical of the president (the atlantics unsubstantiated veterans comment) and the most they get 'punished' is a critical tweet.

You are delusional to think the European media is freer.

Yes which is why the United States is not a democracy. There cannot be a law in the United States that suppresses or compels speech no matter how many people want it. The us is a country of freedoms not mob rule.

I mean... I thought so in 2016, but four years later, I simply do not believe this. There is no evidence to support this. He has constantly condemned white supremacy. He obviously is a nationalist, but for America, being a multi-racial nation, saying one is a nationalist does not mean you are a racist.

Trump has delivered insane results for minority groups, and has done things even supposed 'progressive' candidates wouldn't do. All this has convinced me that the man is clearly not a racist, despite constant claims otherwise.

Also, I suppose I am somewhat immune to the racism claims against trump. My parents are immigrants, as is my entire family. My parents were the first ones on the Trump bandwagon in 2016, followed by the rest of my family. I thought they had gone off their rocker and thought the man was nuts, despite being a Republican leaning voter. I voted against him in 2016. I thought he was clearly a racist and would hurt immigrants, like my uncle. However, Trump became president, and my uncle's case suddenly went faster. All this talk about how he was delaying immigration simply didn't pan out for anyone in my family. My uncle became a citizen a few years ago, and now the entire family is voting Trump. My sister-in-law (who is Hispanic) is also voting Trump, along with a bunch of her family. They didn't 4 years ago.

Funnily, enough, most of my friends growing up (who are mostly non-white) are either Trump voters or are okay with Trump (like they do not believe people who vote for him are racist). I do have friends who believe that all Trump voters are nuts, and they are mostly the white friends I made in my super-elite college. I do have non-white friends from college who are also against Trump, but given how few non-whites there are in elite colleges to begin with, that's the minority for me.. Even more amazingly, despite my own immigrant family and my sister-in-law's supporting Trump, the only family I have that is rabidly anti-Trump are my white relatives (who are more highly educated than anyone in my non-white family, I suppose).

The fact is Hacker News and most of these elite media outlets cater to an audience of mostly white, educated, coastal liberals. Their experiences do not match the reality of every day Americans, including black and brown and immigrant ones. I would not be surprised to see massive black and brown turnout for Trump. Perhaps not majorities, but enough to give the democrats real cause for concern.

>I feel like you're letting your biases creep into your interpretation.

You're letting yours creep into your interpretation of Trump's statements? Should anyone accept the results of an election whose integrity is not clear? Without any context surrounding his statements, they are hard to really condemn. Of course, if we examine the context, the President's statements are clearly condemnable. The same is true of the Atlantic.

The Atlantic is a left-leaning publication. They posted the article as if not conceding would be an appropriate reaction. I have read the article (multiple times at this point), and I have come to the same conclusion: while not outright instructing them not to concede, it is normalizing not conceding.

And yes, the title is incredibly leading. If it were an article about how some republicans may choose to not concede, the article would be titled 'Why the GOP won't concede the election'. It should have been similarly titled for the Dems, but of course, it's not, because it's being normalized.

With regards to clinton... Another commenter posted articles linking to the tweet. And you're giving her more benefit of the doubt than trump. Trump has said he will concede if fair. You are now wondering if Clinton's call to not concede is really just a call to not concede until the election is fairly settled while attempting to draw a difference between the two.

That's not true. The democratic party has not committed to a safe transition of power. Clinton has told Biden to not concede, even if he loses. The Atlantic has pieces saying that the Democrats should not concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/democrats-.... Biden, as far as I know, has not said anything specific on the matter.

Most people don't agree fully with any person they respect politically. That doesn't mean you toss the baby out with the bathwater. Tucker Carlson's views on Marijuana may seem odd on Hacker News, but (1) they're fairly typical and mainstream and (2) they really don't matter when Tucker is reporting on things like the Joe Biden allegations.

> You have to vote for people to implement those things.

Not really. We didn't vote for Amy Coney Barrett, or anyone else on the supreme court, but ultimately, they -- and the myriad other judges -- are the ones who protect the populace, via rule of law, from a government of any political party interfering in the fundamental rights -- as outlined in the Constitution -- over which the government has no authority to legislate over.

EDIT: That is to say, I am not someone who feels super-well-represented by any political party or candidate. Despite the fact that I prefer Trump over Biden, I don't like everything about the man, by any means. But honestly, whether he wins or not, I don't really care, because I trust our Constitution via the judiciary (and legislation, when necessary) to guarantee to me what I care most about... the freedom to practice my religion and to speak what I think.