deleted by creator

We embedded third party auditors in that crypto exchange so I’m curious exactly how inscrutable tiktok really are.

I mean the accusations are that they’re too beyond oversight and we can’t confidently audit the data, so giving us a button to stop them when we can’t see what they’re doing would be a joke. But I’m skeptical that it’s as difficult to lock down their data as we make it seem.

Tiktok offered us the ability to shut them down? To avoid being shut down. By us. Woe to the vanquished I guess.

I wonder if influencers are real. People will make decisions and then gravitate towards something, and others will end up thinking that that something is the cause. But I’ve never seen evidence that an influencer with 1 million followers is anything other than a mustering ground for people already wanting to act out. I guess “influencer” is just shorthand for “we don’t actually know what’s influencing all these people, but we know where they’ve assembled!”

The Shinzo Abe situations are always weird to me. One or more people decided to do this, in the sense that the buck stops somewhere.

It’s easy to find addresses, workplaces, family members, an itinerary.

It’s like in order to make it to these positions you need to have a defective brain that allows you to hurt lots of other people while ignoring how easy it is for one of them to reach out and touch you. I’d need constant anxiety meds.

It’s new to me, I think it’s saying that your system is built up by you declaring what you want in a file, a single source that everything comes from.

It’s atomic because each action the system takes is carefully completed rather than bailing out and requiring you to fix something.

It’s immutable meaning you declare how you want things to be set up and then critical changes stem from those declarations and nothing else. You would obviously generate preferences, save data, etc. but the files that make the system / packages work are carefully locked.

It’s like the concept of flatpaks + structured system defining + modern common sense OS operations?

And because corporations aren’t people, here’s the CEOs that ran things during 2014:

Hans Vestberg (b 1965) Verizon

Randall Lynn Stephenson (b 1960) AT&T

Glen F Post (b 1952) CenturyLink

We let these people act with impunity in our society but it doesn’t need to be this way. Look at how Elon, who thrives on attention, flips out over being tracked and heckled. They stole hundreds of billions from us but we don’t even act like it.

No problem. I’m no guru and I’m currently on Zig but I think learning some Rust is a really fast way to hone skills that are implied by other languages.

You use lifetimes to annotate parameters and return values in order to tell the compiler about how long things must last for your function to be valid. You can link a specific input with the output, or explicitly separate them. If you don’t give lifetimes the language uses some basic rules to do it for you. If it can’t, eg it’s ambiguous, then it’s a compile error and you need to do it manually.

It’s one of the harder concepts of rust to explain succinctly. But imagine you had a function that took strA and strB, used strB to find a subsection of strA, and then return a slice of strA. That slice is tied to strA. You would use 'a annotation for strA and the return value, and 'b for strB.

Rust compiler will detect the lifetime being shorter than expected.

Also, ownership semantics. Think c++ move semantics. Only one person is left with a good value, the previous owners just have garbage data they can’t use anymore. If you created a thing on the heap and then gave it away, you wouldn’t have it anymore to free at the end. If you want to have “multiple owners” then you need ref counting and such, which also stops this problem of premature freeing.

Edit: one more thing: reference rules. You can have many read-only references to a thing, or one mutable reference. Unless you’re doing crazy things, the compiler simply won’t let you have references to a thing, and then via one of those references free that thing, thereby invalidating the other references.

I’ll have to check the leaderboards but this might be the most money ever raised by a convicted president.

…

Yep! Number one!

I’m currently watching the Trump presser the day after, and he’s straight up violating his gag order, spending awhile talking about Cohen, basically saying “I can’t talk about him, but his name rhymes with Mohen, they call him a fixer, and …” The whole thing is nuts but just thought that was a bit special.

Reading the report makes me feel like I’m from a different planet.

It clearly spells out Israel blocking aid to Gaza. It describes what we all would call blocking aid. If someone did what Israel does, to you, you would call it blocking. Israel blocks aid and the report makes it plain.

Just because they have a different definition of “blocking aid” doesn’t mean the report cleared Israel. I don’t get it. Can you really just say whatever you want, end it with “but it’s not what it sounds like” and that’s the takeaway everyone gets?

It’s one thing for a document to have arbitrary restrictions on what it can say. That happens. It’s another for people to take it so literally.

Edit: I don’t even know what definitions they were working with, I just got a “it’s not technically…” vibe. But I do know that the report describes blocking aid.

Nearly all guns will have a legal upstream source, so it stands to reason that taxes can directly impact people selling guns used in crimes, indirectly impacts those who sell them under the table, extracts money from gun owners who as a class aren’t being as responsible as they should, and fundamentally reduces the amount of guns in circulation.

I don’t see a negative. It’s foss so you ought to be relaxed about others using your code. The issues are probably just articulating problems that were already there. If it’s stuff you don’t care about… it’s a foss repository so you just ignore it.

Maybe I’m hallucinating because I can’t find it, but I swear there was a Nietzsche bit about “It is a weak man who walks around in armor.” In this case it’s literal armor.

Oh, your god said we should do that? But my god is a super god times infinity and he says the opposite.

Just goes to show you that for every kid that is mature for their age, there’s 100s of adults that never left the playground.

By roll coal types I mean people who feel indignation when told they’re doing something harmful to the environment. There’s usually a bit of eye rolling involved.

I think we should compare dogs and cats to good pets to own, rather than pretending the choices are “big powerful dog” and “environment destroyer 3000.”

After all, both are safe in theory, but irresponsible pet owners ruin it. You can’t expect everyone to correctly take care of certain dog breeds, you can’t expect the majority of cat owners to give up the “proud to roll coal” attitude towards their cat + the environment.

Let’s just have pet spiders or something.

Japan was completely blockaded, which is such a profound thing in war that it’s really all you need to defeat “nuking was necessary” arguments.

And they were completely resource starved, another profoundly important detail of a war machine.

And the fanaticism + “they will die to the last man, woman, and child” is grossly misrepresented in the context of nukes.

But these details aren’t relevant to how Palestinians and the situation in Gaza is portrayed. No siree.

It feels Kafkaesque. “Hello, I’m against genocide. Do I stand in line to be labeled a terrorist simp? Should I stand in the Nazi line? Just wondering what label I’ll need to own.”