DagAgren
Do please specify what those "uncomfortable views" actually are.
Do you know why we have that reaction? Because of millions upon millions of dead, innocent humans. That is what those ideologies lead to. We learned this lesson once, and we learned it very well. We don't want that to happen again. We don't want to let those ideas spread again. We don't want to see the mass graves again they lead to again. We learned that.
Some people have forgotten, though.
Why? I have all of those on my computer without strapping anything to my head.
Nobody but libertarians looking for excuses for racism use that term, deal with it.
Still not seeing it.
Acting like it's an accepted logical fallacy is ridiculous. It's a term ESR made up because people kept rightly calling him a sexist and racist and he didn't like it and threw a tantrum.
The implication of the actual article, if you read it to the end, is the exact opposite.
The way Swift does them is the least awkward and most robust I have seen in any language.
> As an example, the colon and the whitespace are sufficient to separate parameters. So is the comma. So we have...both?
Designing a language around what the minimum requirements of a parser is will not get you a good language. Human language is massively redundant, because humans find it more easy to communicate when there is redundancy. Computer code is also communication aimed at humans, and a bit of redundancy does not hurt there, and can often help.
> There is also the issue that, please correct me if I got this wrong, the label that's in the signature becomes the name of the parameter inside the function.
This is incorrect. You can optionally specify both an internal and external name for any argument. Unlabelled arguments are just a special case of this syntax, where you say "external name does not exist, internal name is this".
That is not a view that you can build a democracy on. To have democracy, you have to exclude certain ideologies and ideas. This has always been the case and will always remain the case. Some ideologies are antithetical to democracy, and that article espoused one of them.
None of my options suggested above required not trusting them. Either Apple lies about cooperating, the FBI lies about having access, or the FBI has access without Apple's knowledge.
Anyway, their statements on the matter go much further than what a gag order would require.
This does not seem like an accurate statement. After the PRISM revelations, which named Apple, Apple said they were unaware of the program and were not giving them access. As far as I know, this is the way things still stand today. The leaks claim access to Apple, Apple says they are not providing access. This may be explained through either party lying, or by the FBI being able to access Apple without their cooperation.
> They also said their home button had a hardware problem and you had to buy a new phone, when it's been later demonstrated it could be fixed with software.
This also seems inaccurate. Apple has never claimed you need to buy a new phone if the home button breaks. The actual issue is that the home button is part of the security system of the phone, runs its own fingerprint detection and is paired with the mainboard, and thus cannot be replaced without updating this pairing, otherwise there would be a trivial security break for the fingerprint protection. As a result, only Apple have the required access to replace the button, and thus third-party replacements are impossible.
As far as I know this is also still the case.
Now you can.
Bullets don't fly on their own accord. Someone aims them.
People actually killing protesters always, without fail, claim to be trying to stop "rioters and looters". This is not a phrase to be taken at face value, ever.
Why is it me who is supposed to shut up, and not the other guy?
That sounds like taking a political stand to me.
Or are you going to try to claim that "oh those minorities are such whiners" is apolitical, but "no they are not" is not?
You allow lots of inflammatory and political opinions on the site. But you don't allow people to stand up to them or challenge them. That is pure hypocrisy.