It's pretty obvious that it narrows the statement of "old enough" to be a fine-grained distinctions fitting, in this case, to a short timespan, possibly a few years, that some readers may consider to be old and others not old at all.
Is there some other meaning you had in mind when asking this, or was this a pedantic question?
Not OP but I think it is good to balance a healthy respect for disregarding cultural norms with a perceived understanding of your outsider perspective and the given cost. I'm a big fan of Stallman and have worked people of similar dispositions. while they provide very clear insight and intermittent productivity spurts, it comes at a huge social cost that in some cases can make or break a team. In the long-term they could be right, but in the short-term it becomes an all-or-nothing crusade. I've been there myself and I've reassembled the pieces of a team after others did the same. Anti-authoritarianism is noble and justified, but it is no rational excuse for poor hygiene if you want to connect with other people and have a non-imaginary impact on the world.
I don't think Stallman cares about that nearly as much as you do. He already resolved that problem by making his work about collaboration instead of competition. That's really the whole point of free software in the first place.
Of course, that doesn't mean I'm here to encourage idiosyncrasies. My entire point is that you aren't going to win such a person over with an appeal to authority, because that was their point already.
It's worth adding the director of the FBI posted publicly showing a clear politically motivated bias in an ongoing case. So outside the immediate facts of the case there are questions around presumption of innocence, due process, and a fair trial, as well as prosecutorial misconduct.
Not to defend doge at be all, but the article specifically mentioned installing a bunch of proxy and scraping tools. Is this likely to be an actual Russian state attack or just extremely poor opsec / an attempt to evade internal controls, still likely very illegal. I'm all for holding all involved accountable to the fullest extent, but this is too sloppy for Russian state involvement to make me think they're on any intelligence payroll anywhere.
On the other side, why would Russia need to hide it's involvement in anything with this administration? If they're not willing collaborators they're seemingly entirely beguiled by Russia propaganda and schmoozing.
Brazenly just logging in from Russia can be a statement all its own.
A Great Filter could come before or after intelligence.
For example, predation could be a Great Filter. We made it past the threat of predation, but perhaps most life forms in the universe don’t. In this example, life could be pervasive in the universe but it’s optimizing for defensive attributes like speed and armor rather than intelligence. That could explain why we don’t see aliens colonizing the galaxy. With the Great Filter behind us, nothing would be stopping us from colonizing the galaxy ourselves, we just might be among the first to do it.
Putting the Great Filter in front of us postulates that many life forms have achieved our same accomplishments but haven’t colonized the galaxy. It could be because of doom and gloom scenarios like war, aliens, cosmic catastrophes, etc. Or it could be a beneficial Great Filter like enlightenment and the lack of desire to propagate and consume endlessly, or the ability to survive in deep space, leaving stars and planets untouched.
You're still trivializing. The cancel culture would often follow the people it wanted to cancel to make it hard for them to get another job again.
Also, I'll add that the "there is the door" comment is entirely wrong. There are countless stories of open source maintainers being harassed to make language changes to their code base, master/slave, whitelist/blacklist. The harassers never offered to do the work themselves just demanded it be done for them or they'll keep harassing.
These were people matching into someone else's "safe space" to police their private language.
The government disappearing people and dismantling the country is very bad, and nothing good can be said about it. What I'm talking about are the individuals on both sides not formally in power, and their equal efforts to stifle what they see as "bad speech". It's that mentality, on both sides, that led us to where we are.
Harassment is bad. Extraordinary rendition is bad. One of them is significantly worse than the other. And the side complaining about A whilst celebrating B is significantly more hypocritical.
What about the side that complains about A and complains about B, and complains that constant polarizing rhetoric has been ratcheting up to get us from the less bad A to the very bad B?
1) Plenty of "Polarizing rhetoric" has come from the side of the current administration.
2) "Polarizing rhetoric" is not remotely a valid justification of disappearing people.
Ah yes, it is the left's fault the right is spiraling the country into despotism. Feeling a lot of "Why do you make them hit you?" energy in this thread.
Because it actually is, in no small part, the illiberal left's fault for going all out to emphasize identity instead of unity, dividing and polarizing the U.S. population.
The illiberal left must be held accountable for their role in the Democratic defeats of 2024, expelled and publicly repudiated, and then the Democratic Party can work on rebuilding trust with voters.
It is everyone who kept on the path instead of saying 'I don't care what you say I'll defend your right to say it'. If you can't allow someone else to say things you don't like you are at fault - it doesn't matter how good hou think you are.
So because a vocal minority 'cancelled' speech in private spheres for a few years, it's the fault of (all?) progressives that the right wildly overreacted and installed facism and government enforced censorship?
By this logic if one member of my family makes you feel unwelcome then its my own fault that you got the cops to beat me up?
There are a lot of people on the "right" who are horrified about how Trump is doing anything and have no clue what they can do about it.
There are evil people on both sides, always have been, always will be. It always looks like the other side is more evil than your side because you have a human bias to assume people who agree with your are not evil with a few small exceptions. Because of this bias it is always wrong to try to paint the other side worse than yours.
The important take away: power shifts, it always has and always will. Next time your side is in power how will you recognize where they are doing evil and oppose them. The first is at least something you can partially train yourself to do with great effort - I have no clue what you can usefully do about it though.
The left is loud about the hypocrisy and faults of its own. Whether that's drone striking US citizens, trading on insider info, or taking literal bribes. The left has prosecuted its own far more often than the right.
My whole point is both sides deserve the rebutes and criticism they have earned, and at this moment one side is objectively far, far worse. Which doesn't excuse faults on the left. But it certainly is not the left who has embraced facism and kleptocracy, nor has anyone except the Republican party and their voters caused this.
> There are a lot of people on the "right" who are horrified about how Trump is doing anything
Generally i think harvey weinstein should be unemployable in any position of power. if people hear about what he's done and still want to hire him, sure, they can go for it, but they'd probably appreciate knowing about him before doing that.
[1] why is this relevant? Because anyone who shoots a puppy that they considered untrainable and then brags about it in their own book is a stone-cold sociopath.
Does this let you export rendered diagrams at html or pdf?
The Markdown Preview Enhanced plug-in is the only plugin I found to do this easily lady time I was looking .
Claims were overhyped by the media, but were the actual deepseek claims false though?
Huggingface and universities have replicated the deepseek chain of thought training on top of llama for very cheap, and the openai pricing for o3-mini shows how cheap that model is vs the original o1.
Not to say that I buy this EV hype, which is suspiciously timed with teslas weakening position.
I think lambdas or function pointers can be possible if they assume all of the scope of where they are called rather than where they are declared, that would prevent them from allowing recursion through forward declarations.
It would be awkward to work with since you'd have to be aware of all of the eventual caller scopes rather than your current local scope when defining it.
I suppose it would be like macros instead of true functions.
Is there some other meaning you had in mind when asking this, or was this a pedantic question?
reply