excursionist
Could you expand on this? Is this obviously right because it's FB being boycotted? I don't use FB - is it noticeably worse than youtube, reddit, twitter?
Don't worry bro, you'll die and all your fears will go away :). From a personal point of view biological immortality would be great, but I think you're right that there are risks - I can imagine a world where a tiny fraction of wealthy/powerful people make themselves into immortal super-tyrants.
Parent's point is that we don't actually know how much methane is released into the atmosphere due to natural gas fracking.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/politics/bernie-sander...
> Mr. Uygur, a longtime supporter of Mr. Sanders, has also disparaged former President Barack Obama on his show, argued that bestiality should be legal and hosted white supremacist figures, including David Duke. In one clip that circulated on Twitter, Mr. Duke ends an interview by saying, “I am not, what you call a racist,” to which Mr. Uygur replies sarcastically, “No, of course not.”
They added the word 'sarcastically' and also added this after:
> Mr. Uygur called the clip a “complete smear” that had been taken out of context from a combative one-hour interview in which he pushed back on Mr. Duke.
In reality, NYT published a smear about Cenk Uygur, claiming he was supporting and agreeing with this white supremacist David Duke. This was a straight up lie, since Cenk spent the entire interview criticizing and arguing with David Duke, not agreeing with him at all. This caused an outrage among Cenk's supporters, and NYT quietly updated their article so that now it says almost the opposite of the original! Also, note that the smear was published after Cenk decided to run for Congress and the reporter knew that the clip used to support the 'Cenk agrees with David Duke' smear was out of context. [1]
[1] https://www.mediaite.com/news/ny-times-corrects-report-on-ce...
Imagine if this kind of 'accountability' was applied to the rest of society. Oh, you robbed a bank? Well, you're banned from this branch for 4 years! Don't do it again!
You still have to identify which polyfills you need, add them in, test them, etc. Polyfills are also quite buggy especially for new features from my experience. Also, the fact that you're typically running your build, packaging, linting, testing etc. on Node for your frontend code, says a lot.
> My experience is that once you add backend to your list of supported targets, you have to get quite a bit of new tooling in place.
When is that really even a consideration though? When do you actually need to deploy your frontend app to Node? If you have common model code, or say, input validation/sanitation, business logic, etc - that can easily be identical for both browser and Node.
> Backend code is generally not packaged before running, imports are done at runtime rather than build time, etc.
That really depends on your setup. You can do imports at runtime or build time for both Node and browser. If you're transpiling the setup is pretty much identical.
> I don’t know what kind of point that is, because it doesn’t matter to me that sometimes the frontend and backend will happen to run on the same engine.
How do you run your unit tests, your static code analysis, your packaging and traspiling? Do you run it in the browser or in Node? There is no fundamental difference between JS of the same version in Node vs Browser. Any browser specific or Node specific libraries/features you use are generally not part of any stable JS spec.
> it was super rare to see any code shared between frontend and backend.
Well I'm assuming these are different applications, so that's expected. I don't know why you wouldn't share your model definitions and/or validation/sanitation code though. People do this even for backends/frontends written in different languages.
New features will have varying support between implementations in any language. You have to take these differences into account even if you're writing frontend-only code.
> I find it completely unacceptable to assume that V8 is running in the browser. In general, I do all of my JS development work in Firefox or Safari, and this saves me a bunch of time checking portability later.
The point is it can be the same javascript engine for frontend and backend. The difference between Node JS and Firefox JS is the same as between Chrome JS and Firefox JS.
Lack of generics is an obvious weak point in Go.
> Go filled the blank of lacking of a static language which is still much flexible in the world.
What makes Go more 'flexible' than C++ or Java? The point about built-in concurrency does not speak to the flexibility of the language imo.
> For example, C++ doesn't support using methods (member functions) as function values.
I would argue this is a very minor 'feature', and not very useful in C++ - you can have member function pointers in C++. Many other statically typed programming languages have supported first class functions since long before Go was around.
> Java even doesn't support function values. A single-method interface is needed to simulate function callbacks.
It pretty much does support first class functions, with slightly different syntax in some cases. Java supports lambdas, method references, functional interfaces.
> Many languages introduce lambda expressions to add some flexibility. But this doesn't solve the rigid problem, member functions still can't be used as function values.
What is the benefit of having non-static member functions as function values in object oriented languages? Also, you seem to be only comparing Go with C++ and Java, Haskell has more powerful first-class function support than Go, as do a dozen other languages.
What transparency? I all see are unverifiable claims. Such claims actually make you more suspect imo.
> PIA has never logged nor has KAPE.
So you say.
> And to Zero Trust we are headed.
How is 'Zero Trust' in any way related to the issue of transparency you bring up?
What are you talking about? Verify what?