lerptime
That is not to say that as atrocious as these actions are, that they can't be successful. There are cases in history where the US has successfully assimilated a different culture. Basically the entire native american population has more or less been assimilated into US culture with some small vestiges of the old ways remaining.
I also agree with you that the US response is stupid for exactly the same reasons. However it is only stupid in retrospect. Bush sent troops into the middle east with the majority support of the American people. He lost that support later or aka the people regretted their emotional response in retrospect.
It is highly likely that if such terrorism attacks occurred on US soil again our reaction would be no different. Immediate armed response and only wisdom in retrospect.
Like the immediate negative response to my post, people react emotionally to situations. They never try to analyze the situation which is always much more complex than it actually appears.
I don't think he's justifying anything. He's questioning the nature of this world where a clear black and white decision is not always possible. He is saying in this case could there be No justifiable action possible?
The hypothetical scenario is likely to help you empathize with the events from the chinese perspective. You cannot relate to the people reacting to terrorism in China. However, by envisioning a similar/equivalent scenario in your own country can possibly help you identify with the situation from their perspective. That is the purpose of the hypothetical.
The question still stands if the posed equivalent situation was happening in America, what is the appropriate response? I don't know how to answer his question, do you?
>Killing millions of people is not a proper response to and isolated terrorist act
Don't play with words here. Millions are missing in concentration camps getting reeducated, this isn't actual genocide. This is not equivalent to sending the military to another country and conducting actual killings. What China is doing is still atrocious but quite different then literal slaughter.
Also it's not a response to one isolated incident. Several terrorism acts with hundreds slaughtered and no end in sight is what is actually going on. I don't think you would call several 9/11's happening on american soil isolated terrorist attacks. Perhaps terrorism attacks in China seem isolated to you but this is not the case to a Chinese person.
Extreme precautions were taken to make sure that all killings involved middle easterners. Were the precautions perfect? No. But obviously the killings were kept exclusive to a race.
Also by war he likely doesn't mean "official" declaration of war by the vocal cords of the US president.
He likely means a more physical form of war by means using soldiers, bullets and bombs to conduct mass slaughter. That kind of war.
>And please tell me your imagined design to "quell all terrorism" uses a blockchain. If so, do tell-- really, no detail is too small.
You got big balls too. The Terrorism he talks about involves actual human harm and the mass slaughter of hundreds of people in China.
And here you are trivializing what he's talking about into an insensitive block chain insult. Might as well just call him a "nerd."
I'd say your balls are 100x bigger than his.
Of course I could be wrong. I don't know the guy. But that statement alone is enough for me to make a negative judgement against him.
>No, one kind of technical debt arises that way. Not the only kind. There's another kind that arises when everything is in such small pieces that nobody can tell how the pieces relate to each other. You can easily understand each piece, but you have to go through a chain of a bazillion function calls to see what's actually going on.
All this logic must exist regardless of whether it's coupled or uncoupled. You do not alleviate the logical burden by coupling logic together or uncoupling the logic. If you call this "technical debt" then you cannot get rid of it. Why even call it debt then as logic is intrinsic to application.
In fact decoupling logic can improve readability as it marks each piece of logic with a contextual function name. Either way you do not alleviate complexity by coupling logic. You alleviate this complexity problem by providing logical layers, using namespaces, and using good function naming.
Coupling logic into Objects does nothing objectively as it does not eliminate complexity it only makes sure that the complexity is LESS modular.
Let's be clear though. I am saying that the lower levels of your application should be ALL uncoupled logic. Then you build logical layers on top of your primitives that consists of compositions of your logic that build higher and higher. So a person on layer 5 only needs to go to layer 4 to understand it, and does not need to go to layer 1 to understand every primitive.
>This is like economists, who have correctly predicted nine of the last two recessions. Sure, you're prepared for when the change comes (if you can find where to make it - see above). You've also prepared for all the changes that never come. That's rather wasteful.
Analogies don't offer proof of an argument. Additionally it's not a good analogy. Economists don't completely understand what causes recessions and how to prevent them. We do, however, completely understand the difference between uncoupled logic and coupled logic.
>Sure, it may. And when that happens, we'll decouple it. And in the meantime, we'll enjoy the coupling that, at the moment, is the correct thing.
This is the main point of tech debt. It is hard to decouple. You can have all logic decoupled at the lowest layer and still have everything be readable. I think the previous sentence is just a type of programming you haven't dealt with. You've never wrote a program with decoupled logic that was readable. Think deeper. There is no reason why coupled logic should be more readable then decoupled logic. The Logic still exists either way, you either compose two modules and give it a name or you don't even use modules shove all your logic into a module with a single name.
>See, this is all in the context of SOLID, the very first piece of which is "Single Responsibility". We don't couple things on a whim.
The problem is OOP does this all the time. It couples state with logic. These two things should be uncoupled.
To be more pedantic and get even lower level than machine code, at the theoretical level the basis of computation can be either procedural or functional. See lambda calculus and Turing machine for more info.
By having every sector of logic be ungrouped it leads to maximum reusability for the future.
Technical debt is at the lowest possible level in projects where every piece of logic is uncoupled. In fact the very phenomenon of Technical debt arises from logic that's hard to uncouple. By having every sector of your program be a lego brick you are preparing your program for an inevitable future where the structure must be reconfigured.
Grouping logic together is like super gluing lego bricks together because it seems like they belong together.
There's a term for this style of coding that's actually negative. It's called ravioli code. But the negativity mostly applies to when this style of coding is used in OOP.
What this means is that whenever you use the word "prove" with "science" it is colloquial. It is always colloquial.
The statistical methods used in social sciences are no different than the statistical methods used to "prove" things in physics.
My job as a parent is to help him understand. Not to build a bubble.
As for violent content I would tell my kid to just watch out for that and that the content is unpleasant. It's his choice whether he wants to see it. Usually at that age adult content or violent content is uninteresting or unpleasant so kids tend to avoid it anyway.
Hey I have a different opinion than you. I think you should respect that rather than say parents are unnecessary after birth. That's rude.
First off think about it logically. Why indeed do parents have to protect children from things they will not only be exposed to as adults but things they will inevitably seek and successfully expose themselves to BEFORE they become adults.
Your job as a parent is to protect your kid from actual harm and to teach your kid and feed your kid and guide your kid. Your optional side job is to protect your kid from "reality" that's your own personal choice and there are actual scientific observations of the result.
The podcast below actually illustrates a scientific study on the subject:
https://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/378577902/how-to-be...
A part of it actually follows two blind kids with different parents and different parenting choices.
One parent chose to protect his blind kid from reality.
The other parent gave the blind kid a bike for a birthday present two weeks after the crazy blind kid lost his two front teeth from running into a wall.
Do you want to know the end result of sheltering a blind kid versus encouraging one to explore reality? Watch the podcast to find out. Very interesting if your a parent. Let's just say one blind kid (now adult) now walks around the world as if he can see and literally uses echolocation to navigate the world. The other blind kid walks the world as if he's a crippled blind man.
Here's another one: https://www.npr.org/2015/01/16/377517810/world-with-no-fear
Also about kids. Talking about how kids today only wander around their homes while kids in the 60s and 70s wander around the whole town by themselves. It's attributed to different parenting styles and fear of exposing kids to the real world.
Parents in the 70s were much less fearful about protecting kids from reality. Parents today are scared of everything. But the illogical difference here is that from the 70s to now, crime has actually gone down. Your kids today are more safe than ever before but parents are more restrictive and scared than they ever were before.