theonething

Yes, Kirk had strong opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. And in his public tours, he always had an open mic to give anyone an opportunity to express opposing views.

The context of Kirk's words you are quoting are actually about a trans person winning an athletic event. More significantly, you misinterpret his words to fit your framing of him. He did not advocate for violence against LGBT people.

The Sacramento Bee also initially misinterpreted his words in the same slant you are and after careful reexamination, realized their mistake, retracted their accusation against him and apologized.

> An earlier version of this column included a statement that Charlie Kirk had “called for the lynching of trans people.” The basis for this accusation is a video clip in which Kirk was upset that a trans woman had won an NCAA swimming championship. In the clip, Kirk said that instead of letting the woman compete, “Someone should have took (sic) care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s.” Some trans advocates on social media extrapolated from Kirk’s comments that he called for trans people to be lynched - an accusation The Bee repeated. But a review of the video shows that Kirk never advocated for trans people to be lynched. In fact, he strongly denies the accusation. These notes have been added to the column. The Bee regrets its comments and we apologize for any misunderstanding this earlier version may have caused.

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article273103235.html

You still haven't supplied any evidence or proof of your claim:

> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."

His main purpose on his college tours was to promote the debate and discussion of different viewpoints. Very often the viewpoints of his listeners were very different from his, but he invited open expression and dialogue regardless.

making the serious accusation of racism without offering any justification for the claim ain't so great either...

> This is why China makes the claim that it is actually more democratic[1]. This is not merely propaganda.

It's wild to me that you believe this.

I've spent a few years in China and have made close Chinese friends. One constant I see is Chinese will not admit publicly, but they'll whisper to you in quiet corners that that know their government is authoritarian and the West is more free.

> invalidating refresh keys after single use

That's called refresh token rotation and is a valid security practice.

> it alleviates a lot of mental energy

For me, this is the biggest benefit of AI coding. And it's energy saved that I can use to focus on higher level problems e.g. architecture thereby increasing my productivity.

It's such a tired trope.

And other species have killed countless humans, so in the way you're framing it, no humans are not.

> Oh, I am getting an authentication error. Well, meaybe I should just delete the token check for that code path...problem solved?!

Kind of hyperbolic. If you prompt well, generally, it won't do stupid to that extreme.

The thing is most useful for me about types is it serves as forced documentation. I look at function signature with types and know what kinds of values it accepts and what it returns.

As a kid, when we went shopping at K-mart, I would hangout at the computer department while parents shopped and did stuff like this on the C64. hehe

Yes, you are imagining.

> Covid was the definition of an easy layup.

I don't understand this at all.

Covid was devastating for the whole world. I don't see how it is an "easy layup" for anybody or any country. Was there any country or scenario where it was an "easy layup"?

Isn't it possible to feed that knowledge and context to it? Have it scan your product website and docs, code documentation, git history, etc?

I don't understand this sentiment.

Sure, there might be people out there selling snakeoil, but that's the case for every domain. Does that mean we nobody should try to make apps to solve domain problems at all? Of course not.

So you're asking everyone to stop monetizing ADHD. So the two alternatives are make the apps for free or don't make them at all. The former is not realistic or sustainable and later gives up potential upside.

I mean, do you think all ADHD apps will just be bad and are just people trying rip off ADHDers?

I think a more reasonable premise is yes, just in every domain, there will be snake oil sellers unfortunately and it's up to the consumer to watch out for those. But there will also be genuine people who are trying to solve this problem and that will potentially give people a lot of value for the money they pay for it.

Here's some history I don't want to repeat:

1939, Nazi Germany starts fucking around and nobody does anything about it and then we have WWII on our hands.

You've totally missed the point. It's precisely because we didn't "properly" bomb Germany to stop that first invasion of Poland, that WWII happened and we lost 400,000 Americans, 6 million Jews etc.

I hated my last job. Love my current job. The difference is good managers and good coworkers.

You seem to be wrongly implying that I'm insinuating that loving dogs is correlated with being a ruthless killer.

My comment was another counter example to the GP's statement: "if you can be loving and empathetic to a dog, you can surely began to be that way to humans."

So the point is loving dogs doesn't necessarily correlate with being loving towards humans. That doesn't say anything about what loving dogs does correlate with.

That's very different from what you seem to be implying.

> people will do nothing but work and tend to their 3 dogs, which inhibits personal development or meaningful progress in life.

GP was referring to this group of people whose lives consist of only work and their pets. Clearly you do not fall into this group. In fact, given your lifestyle (a healthy, balanced one), I'd say a pet has great potential to further enhance personal development.

Putin loves dogs too.

Yes, it extends to the realm of absurdity. When people post videos of animals doing good things, invariably comments are posted affirming how much better animals are than humans and "we don't deserve #{animal}s". At the same turn completely forgetting that in the wild, animals eat other animals (and humans) alive, engage in tribal wars, play around and torture their prey before eating them, commit infanticide, rape, etc.

Not in my observations. Where I am, people put their little dogs in strollers, dress them up with hair clips, etc and stroll them around while they're shopping at Macy's etc.

Can you imagine that there might be people who are different from you in this respect?

I don’t see your point. When has the state of the world ever been ever been good?

> printInvoice(invoice, options) // is much better than > ...

in Elixirland, we'd name that function maybe_print_invoice which I like much better.

do you use any tool to add the whole repo?

By default, it shows you a diff of what it plans to do and ask you for permission before making the change.

The wealthy should not be required to go to public schools. They should be able to choose whatever schools they think is the best fit for their children. Same for everyone else.

I agree with you that there is positive correlation.

I also believe those two things are correlated with genetics (and of course environment/upbringing)

You spend your comment dancing around the fact that everyone makes mistakes and yet you claim you trust your team not to make mistakes.

> I "trust other developers to write good code without mistakes without getting it reviewed by others". Of course I can trust them to do the right thing even when nobody's looking, and review it anyway in the off-chance they overlooked something.

You're saying yes, I trust other developers to not make mistakes, but I'll check anyways in case they do. If you really trusted them not to make mistakes, you wouldn't need to check. They (eventually) will. How can I assert that? Because everyone makes mistakes.

It's absurd to expect anyone to not make mistakes. Engineers build whole processes to account for the fact that people, even very smart people make mistakes.

And it's not even just about mistakes. Often times, other developers have more context, insight or are just plain better and can offer suggestions to improve the code during review. So that's about teamwork and working together to make the code better.

I fully admit AI makes mistakes, sometimes a lot of them. So it needs code review . And on the other hand, sometimes AI can really be good at enhancing productivity especially in areas of repetitive drudgery so the developer can focus on higher level tasks that require more creativity and wisdom like architectural decisions.

> I will pick the domain expert who refuses to touch AI over a generic programmer with access to it ten times out of ten.

I would too, but I won't trust them not to make mistakes or occasional bad decisions because again, everybody does.

> You don't need to constantly train younger developers when you can retain people.

But you do need to train them initially. Or do you just trust them to write good code without mistakes too?