0xDEEPFAC

> Ada, unfortunately, looks cobol-like, so someone who knows nothing automatically assumes a ton of bureaucracy. Run away if you want work done.

The Ada++ project (a modified GNAT compiler) might interest you then.

http://www.adapplang.com/

The masochist in me wants to see these mergers continue so that a big enough power vacuum can appear for new indie studios as creativity and "risk-taking" decline.

Funny how in the early 2010s most people and activists feared tech storing too much data and violating privacy - now the only narrative from activists presented on the news and search results seems to be about a lack of censorship with no word on privacy (e.g. "Grrr Qanon", "Grr vaccines", "Grr person with regressive political opinion").

Strange how that happens...

Yea its hard to argue with Pfizer's data about its own products.

Seems odd to call this a "vaccine" isn't this more like "gene therapy"?

No. I would not agree with that. I am opposed to limiting peoples' "ability to influence". People need to have a voice and debates and discussion need to be allowed to happen.

Otherwise you are not changing people's minds, you are simply making their voices disappear from your computer screen.

> If people got encouraged to not get vaccinated, that would be bad?

Yea of course, and thats my point. I think banning these videos and the ability to show discontent makes the problem worse and further divides us on political lines. What exactly is your argument here?

> You that that it is barbaric that a dislike button is not available on one platform?

The removal of the dislike button is another step in an undeniable trend toward censorship against anything mega corps and governments decide is not moral or truthful.

People can tell when they are being herded around and silenced, and they dislike it.

I am saying its a good thing that videos are allowed which encourage people to not get vaccinated or contain information about vaccines not coming from a news network, because the alternative (censorship) is barbaric and unhelpful.

> other person suggested that less people might be vaccinated

And I am suggesting more people might get vaccinated if they are treated as intelligent and allowed to engage in dialog instead of being shadow-banned and removed.

Do you think censoring people would help encourage vaccines?

The key point here is the treatment of those opposing certain views as clearly stupid and in need of protecting is toxic and non-productive. Is Joe Rogan a mindless Trump-voting retard?

You're not going to reach people by silencing creators - you're just going to make their viewers feel prosecuted, angry, and confused. They'll just move to other platforms and probably vote for Trump again...

The way to reach them would be through dialog etc. which is getting more impossible by the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0PYlLQn_YM

> driving a motorcycle made everyone around them unsafe

Not totally untrue

> We're talking about preventing the spread of a lethal contagious disease

Getting vaccinated doesn't stop the spread... if you believe everything you hear our government officials say then I have a war in Iraq and a truck-load of cloth masks to sell you.

> This post comes off as being sarcastic

Indeed. It is.

> and health misinformation is costing a lot of lives today

Thats a pretty cynical view of humanity - should we ban motorcycles because they are costing peoples lives? What is so bad about letting people make their own choices?

> are you OK with hate speech on social media

I believe in "free speech".

For example, is it even possible for you to tell me an objective definition of "hate" speech or "misinformation"? I bet you can't since it ends up being whatever Alphabet, or Meta's truth and morality departments agree on.

Without ways to express yourself the internet will just turn into TV - where people who agree with the megacorps get to hear their own echos all day.

Yea, I agree, its dangerous for people to express their opinions especially if it changes or influences others.

We should hide the dislike count so the mindless don't submit to "bad think"

Interesting patterns, however, it is notable that all of the natural scenes of green probably contained high levels of arsenic - as that was one of the key ingredients in green coloring during Victorian times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvxnXOoFl20

The Windows binary works, but the Linux one was rushed out. Sorry : /

It is not? As the creator I can tell you that the parser and analyzer of GCC/GNAT were modified.

For example, supporting implicit "use" clauses for packages was a difficult problem to solve - not to mention allowing for abbreviated type names in the Standard package.

its a working compiler, so why not?

> this is largely an artifact of Ada syntax being more verbose

If you think Ada is actually verbose check out the Ada++ comparisons with other major languages like C++ and Java.

http://www.adapplang.com/tutorial.html

Would Ada++ be considered weird xD?

http://www.adapplang.com/tutorial.html

Yea, these are poor reasons imho. Relying on mommy Chrome and the hellscape of ECMA transpilers seems like the opposite of "cross platform" since you rely on a much more unstable foundation...

Why not just write a native application?

Sounds like a nice change - I wonder how farms will benefit from less cold weather?

Sounds like a pedantic distinction without a difference ; )

Could Ada++ be part of the Zoo? xD

Open source has nothing to do with it when it is difficult / impossible / highly unlikely that anyone actually has a free device. What kind of developer would make something for an alternative app store which would be installable on 0.001% of devices?

If anything they took more from the community in terms of the Linux kernel etc then they have given back with useful technology when it comes to phones.

When Bernanke made the speech in 2016 where he invented the idea of a helicopter dropping money it was pretty much instantly a meme... everyone in the finance community knew about it because of how ridicules it sounded

Isn't that what rich people do anyways? Foundations and corporate shells to hide their wealth?

Just because they don't make it explicit doesn't mean its not changing. I could be wrong though.