druddha

Given the voting divide based on education, people in the U.S. are getting something else out of college education. I have no issue with shoehorning more liberal education into primary education, but a liberal democracy cannot survive if blue-collar workers have no historical context and vote for authoritarians who are intent on destroying democracy.

Gobbledygook.

> The duty and role of a government is to act in the best interest of their citizens which that government represents.

Truism. The point of contention is around what constitutes "best interest."

> The interests of outsiders are simply not relevant to that

If this is so simple, why did it require an additional 500ish words to qualify it?

Your point seems to boil down to this:

In cases where there is a conflict between the perceived "best interest" of citizens and those of non-citizens, if the citizens haven't specifically directed the government to do otherwise, the government should act in the perceived "best interest" of its own citizens.

But it's reductive and short-sighted to say that humanitarian aid "hurts" one side and "helps" the other. For instance, the marginal impact of a U.S. dollar on a U.S. citizen's productivity is effectively nil. But that same dollar spent in a third-world country would have much higher marginal impact. The productivity of that other citizen allows them to specialize and trade, and then everyone benefits in the long term.

The hyper-nationalism perspective that your country should take whatever it can at the expense of other countries is exactly what led to both of the world wars.

The use of EOs isn't new, and we're not even in the ballpark of high-water marks there: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or....

But in this case, the term "slave" isn't being used, right?

Sounds like your experience is primarily with data stores then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)

It's used correctly in several of the cases listed here. Also, Jenkins uses (or used?) the term correctly.

If they were going to "leap at the chance" to suspend Trump, then why haven't they already? He's been treading in the grey area of their ToS for years.

Seems like a perfectly cromulent project to me.

I agree that the DDG results, especially for software development related searches, are often worse than searching Google or StackOverflow directly. So here's my workflow:

1. Search DDG. If I find a decent result, I stop here.

2. Append !so to the end of the search. This searches StackOverflow directly. If this works, I stop here.

3. Append !g to the end of the search. This searches Google directly.

This way Google becomes a last resort.

Also worth noting that you can actually navigate DDG search results using vim keybindings without the need for a plugin: something Google dropped support for a few years ago.

JS and Python are not to Ruby what Ruby is to Java, though.

> But should everyone even learn k8s?

Of course not.

Different orgs will approach this problem differently. At my company, someone on our infra/devops team made pretty good abstractions eight years ago, and now we're using those same abstractions on top of K8s. So our devs really don't need to know anything about the substrate. But when I go to conferences and meetups, I talk to folks who basically expose the entirety of K8s to devs and expect them to self-serve.

> I think the argument is contrived because loop holes for murder don't exist for a reason, which is that the electoral connection -> legislative process essentially leaves zero room for there to be such a loophole.

Loopholes do exist for murder: for instance, self defense. The Trayvon Martin case is an example of this. The loophole exists for valid reasons, but it's often taken advantage of to circumvent the spirit of the law.

> In fact, concepts such as the intended meaning of the law mean that even if you hacked some edge case in the written law, you'd still go to jail.

Can you provide evidence that this applies only to murder and not to tax evasion?

> Conversely, tax law operates under a general regime where the expected and encouraged behavior of firms is to do their best to avoid paying taxes.

I'll agree it's expected, but I think you'd have a hard time finding a politician or member of the working class who would say firms are encouraged to avoid paying taxes.

I agree that it's not a perfect analogy, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it entirely.

> Simplifying the tax code, regulations, and laws removes the opportunity for well-funded operations to exploit the existing complexity.

I think most people would agree with this statement, but the devil is in the details. Republicans have been trying to accomplish this type of tax reform for decades, but even with control over both houses and the executive branch, they couldn't overcome the influence of special interests. The question isn't whether a simplified tax code is beneficial -- it's how we get from point A to point B that is contentious.

Can you explain why you think that analogy is contrived?

I read it the same way. Headlines are typically present tense. I wonder what caused the editor to write this one in past tense.

"...through conscious effort."

Which is the aforementioned firing of neurons. Consciousness is not supernatural.

The alternative is to pay teachers a higher salary in order to attract candidates who care enough to instill critical thought into their students.

Because the same people who absorb this garbage have an influence on public policy. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Of course. But with all else being equal, would a manager be more likely to promote a scientist who believes in a higher power or a religiously agnostic scientist? The former implies anti-scientific thought.

It's an obviously an analogy.

In modern society, is knowing how to change a tire more practical than understanding the basis of argument?

> You tend to be good at the things you work at, and work at the things you like.

You work at those things which bring you utility. It's a subtle difference, but utility includes activities you don't like but which generate income. Ideally, those activities are also beneficial for society. Critical thinking is more highly valued in modern society than is knowing how to change a flat.

I apologize for not being more clear. I'm speaking specifically of scientific skepticism [1]. Without practicing scientific skepticism, Galileo would not have been motivated to grind lenses in the first place.

I also failed to differentiate "belief" from its use in common vernacular, so I'll rephrase my previous statement:

A scientist practices scientific skepticism. Accepting an unsubstantiated hypothesis without empirical evidence is contrary to scientific skepticism. Belief in a higher power is accepting an unsubstantiated hypothesis without empirical evidence. Thus, belief in a higher power is contrary to scientific skepticism. Therefore, belief in a higher power is contrary to being a scientist.

Of course it's human nature to become emotionally attached to a hypothesis of one's own design. And perhaps scientists would not so rigorously pursue empirical evidence to support their claims if they didn't "believe" them. But the difference between a scientist and a theist is that a scientist will back off their hypothesis when evidence to the contrary is presented, whereas a theist will not.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

No I didn't! The joke is valid. You must have been reading the King James version of my comment.

Surprise is subjective and I think my analogy is apt.

> Religious beliefs in general are not incompatible with skepticism on questions within the domain of science;

I disagree. The Bible explicitly attempts to provide explanations for the order of the natural world.

> some specific religious beliefs may be incompatible with skepticism in some areas of scientific inquiry, but, again, that's different than the generality posed.

How so? This sounds like a restatement of my original point: "Those beliefs may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job."

>In the US, its generally should, since its pretty blatantly illegal in virtually every case

A law that cannot be enforced isn't really a law. Making a case for religious discrimination is difficult. And the subject of this thread revolves around whether discriminating based on beliefs should be allowed. If you worked at Bain Capital and openly supported Bernie Sanders, would you be surprised to not get promotes?

> There may be some specific religious beliefs where that is true for some jobs (in the sciences or otherwise), but, in general, that's not even remotely true.

See my comment below regarding skepticism and science.

I agree on all 3 points, none of which run contrary to what I said. Downvoting without commenting is cowardly, lazy, or both.

Agreed all around.

That was my comment, and I was speaking strictly about sciences (as the previous commenter said he works in a CS department at a university).

Even so, your counterpoint still holds no water. Just because many of them turn to faith during difficult times does not mean they necessarily perform their job function at a higher level as a result.

Being brilliant doesn't necessarily make you a good scientist.

Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist. Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical. Thus, believing in god or Elvis are anti-scientific beliefs.

No reaction. That something provides you with comfort does not make it true.