wesselbindt

At what point would AI necessitate UBI? I'm assuming your idea here is, roughly speaking, that at some point, AI will displace a large section of the work force, rendering them homeless and unable to feed themselves, and that to prevent this, UBI would become necessary. But don't we already have homeless folks? Haven't we already been through technological revolutions putting people out on the streets? If this historical precedent is anything to go by, the politically dominant class is perfectly content with people going homeless on account of not being able to find a job. Seems to me that the classical solutions of pumping drugs into the streets, immobilizing the downtrodden, and straight up slavery through the prison system, are much more likely to happen than UBI

Yeah sorry, I was being quite unclear, especially considering that Israel is committing a genocide too.

To expand slightly on the point: look at what teenagers from very comfortable, peace-ridden, rich western nations are saying online. Some of it is quite normal and unproblematic, but some of it is unhinged/uneducated (take for example 4chan). My point was that having had a genocide committed against you (or if you don't like that term for what SA did; a military invasion) as a teenager is probably gonna make your comments lean a bit more to the unhinged/uneducated side. I think that's normal and expected.

I was thinking Saudi Arabia

Having seen Destiny's loose grasp on facts during the Lex Friedman hosted debate with Benny Morris, Norman Finkelstein, and Mouin Rabbani, I'm gonna go ahead and consider a fan-sourced wiki bearing his name as unreliable.

> He even interviewed a known terrorist on his show

This is incorrect. The kid you're referring to is not a member of the Houthi tribe, and there's no evidence he's a terrorist aside from him saying some angry stuff on social media (and what teenage boy hasn't, especially one living right next to a country committing genocide). I'm sorry but that's just not enough to call someone a terrorist, and calling him one anyway is pretty shitty. Words have meaning, please try to treat them as such.

I'm not the parent commenter, but I feel the same way. Just because something is a fact (although arguably fat doesn't sound very factual) doesn't mean it needs to be discussed during an interview. If someone started Quizzing me on the chemistry of rubber tires for a software dev role, I'd walk too. If someone started listing off the various kinds of sausage there are, I'd walk too. It would make me feel like I'm not taken seriously at best, or that I'm being scammed at worst.

Beyond that, if I looked east Asian, I could also see myself walking on this question for another reason. It would feel like a comment on my ethnic background, which has no place in an interview.

Ideology is their sales pitch, it's for you and me to consume. It has nothing whatsoever to do with their goals and intentions. This has been true of Thatcher and her deeply protectionist policies all the way up to today with Trump and his tariffs. We're not choosing between regulations and no regulations, we're choosing between regulations that benefit the working class and regulations that benefit the owning class. (Although I suppose it could be argued that in the US you choose between regulations that benefit the owning class and regulations that benefit the owning class more)

Nope, not yet, this post dropped three pages in 5 minutes. I guess someone's feefees got hurt.

So at what point does it become acceptable to call a spade and spade and point out that this is fascism?

If you replace the assignment in the else clause with something side-effectful it does make sense. But even then it harms the readability of the code to such a ridiculous extent. I've never not regretted adding an else clause to a for loop. Any cognitive benefits from Python's approach to for loops closely mirroring natural language just go out the window.

Any convention comes with the inconvenience of definition and explanation. So to call the convention that the empty product equals 1 based on that alone seems a bit unfair. The reason the mathematical community has adopted this convention is because it makes a lot of proofs and theorems a bit easier to state. So yes, you lose a bit of convenience in one spot, and gain a bit in a whole bunch of spots.

And note that this convention is not at all required for the point I'm making regarding prime numbers. As you say yourself, restrict the theorem to integers greater than 1, and you can forget about empty products (and it is still easier to state if 1 is not prime (which it isn't)).

The first part of your comment is completely correct. The latter is a matter of taste, of course. I think the main thing that can be said for a lot of the definitions we have in algebra is that the ones we're using are the ones that stood the test of time because they turned out to be useful. The distinction between invertible elements (units) and irreducible elements, while complicated, also gave us a conceptual framework allowing us to prove lots of interesting and useful theorems.

1 is not greater than 1, and a product of one prime is still a product of primes

If 1 is prime, then the fundamental theorem of arithmetic goes from "every positive integer can be written as a product* of primes in one and only one way" to "every positive integer can be written as a product of primes greater than 1 in one and only one way". Doesn't quite have the same ring to it. So just from an aesthetic perspective, no I'd rather 1 isn't a prime number.

* empty products being 1 of course

I agree with you, too clickbaity, too black-white. But a difference between screws and frameworks is that there's plenty of Django developers but not a single screw carpenter.

But GDP (PPP) is not the same as purchasing power, no? I don't know of any actual data but you can imagine two countries, both with the same GDP (PPP), same population size, shared currency (so the PPP doesn't factor in). One has organized its production and labor force in such a way that everyone has a relatively equal share of the pie, and the other one consists of a massive wage slave class getting by on poverty wages and a privileged few who reap the benefits of production. Surely the first of these two countries is more interesting to global ecommerce companies from a sales perspective.

Ah nice it solves the Liskov violation that the standard library has. In the standard library, dates can be compared with <, and datetimes are dates. But compare a datetime with a date with <, and you get an error. This drove me nuts at work recently.

I wonder what benefits this choice has that outweigh the risks of this behavior.

> could act accordingly

Concretely, what are you thinking of here?

I think there's an erroneous implicit assumption in your reasoning, namely that to be Zionist is equivalent to be Jewish, and to be anti-zionist is to be Muslim (otherwise, why would you be talking about Jew:Muslim ratios). The fact of the matter is that not every Zionist* is Jewish (in fact, the vast majority of Zionists are christian), and vice versa not every Jewish person is a Zionist (Jewish voice for peace, the ultra orthodox, etc).

But even beyond that, I think engaging in censorship to hide an ethnic cleansing is an affront to humanity.

* Here, I'm taking Zionism to mean to be in support of the way Israel has formed and continued to form in the past 77 or so years. I am aware that there are many different interpretations of Zionism (to illustrate the breadth; Noam Chomsky considered himself a Zionist), but this particular interpretation is the one that is relevant to this conversation.

Popularity and vendor lock are not merit.

Maybe because you're stuck with it because a bunch of software has already been written in it, in need of maintenance and extension. Or maybe because the browser only runs javascript.

A lot of replies to your comment conflate possibility with necessity. Could and need are different things.

Ok, so then take Israel, whatever. Despite the ethnic cleansing that Israel is carrying out, it is not valid to look at a person with suspicion just because they're from Israel.

"But it's true!" is in my opinion a poor response to accusations of prejudice. "Black people are criminals" "That's racist" "But it's true, look at the statistics!" It doesn't make the original statement any less racist.

Now you're just arguing semantics. "I hate Ethiopians" is just as problematic as "I hate black people".

"Don't trust him, he's from Israel"

Thank goodness the red scare is over and we live in a more enlightened age.

> The vast majority of North Koreans outside North Korea are not defectors, instead they are controlled state assets.

So, I'm not a fan of North Korea (is anyone?), but this is definitely racist rhetoric. One thing that helps me see whether I'm saying something iffy is by replacing the ethnic group I'm talking about, and replacing it with another. If the resulting statement is either silly, deeply offensive, or obvious scare mongering, typically it means the original statement is worth reconsidering.

I completely agree.

Anyone with half a brain understands the argument you put forward, and there is not a single doubt on my mind that the current administration does. But the point is not the savings. The point is incapacitating the government to the point where privatization starts to looks like a viable alternative. This has been the strategy since Thatcher and Reagan, look up "starving the beast". This administration is just really good at it.

> "me 3 months later" counts as a whole second developer

A fairly incompetent one, in my experience. And don't even get me started on "me 3 months ago", that guy's even worse.

This section:

> Apart from parsing the SQL query, I also considered an alternative testing approach that I might implement in the future: go through each migration one by one, and insert some dummy data into the database before applying it, to make sure that we test each migration being applied on a non-empty database. The data would either have to be generated automatically based on the current database schema, or we could commit some example DB dataset together with each migration, to make sure that we have some representative data sample available.

Suggests that this may also be a fairly complicated direction. Although it's not entirely clear to me why he can't just put one record in the db before any migrations, and then pull it all through. Plus it has the added drawback of removing your coverage for the (not unimportant) zero case.