orbital223
How can you know that your Python implementation won't send your credit card details to an LLM when it runs your script? It does not follow an ISO standard that says it can't do that. You're not making assumptions about it's behavior, are you?
It does not. It just moves the edge case to a different position: trailing comma has the "issue" when adding an argument to the end of the list while leading comma has it when adding an argument to the beginning.
Also, as pointed out by the other commenter, any decent modern diff tool will make it obvious that the change to the existing line is just the addition of a comma, which makes the difference basically moot.
Neglect would be a step up. It feels like they are actively trying to antagonize existing users.
A naturalized citizen is someone who was not born a citizen and then becomes one. Both of your examples are of natural citizens.
There is a world of difference between "intent" and reality.
So your conversation actually goes:
HN/Reddit: "I would love to just give you the money directly instead of watching ads in exchange for advertizers giving you money."
Companies: "Sure, here's the ad-free version. You have to pay 20 times as much as the advertizers do though."
HN/Reddit: "Wait, what? That's bullshit. Why?"
Companies: "Fuck you, that's why."
- Artisan Makes (https://www.youtube.com/@artisanmakes): Hobby machining.
- Rex Krueger (https://www.youtube.com/@RexKrueger): Woodworking.
Exposing uninitialized memory as valid values tends to be a really bad idea.
The handling of endptr in DYN_ARR_RESIZE seems to be incorrect. If I have an array with 2 elements and capacity of 3 and I DYN_ARR_RESIZE it to 5, I now have an array with 5 elements, 3 of which are garbage values.
Exactly, therefore the claim in OP that "They can't claim a fucking fetus is a person and then not give it rights." isn't really sound. Our legal systems already claim that some beings (children in this example) are persons but that they aren't entitled to the full range of rights that adults enjoy.
Please do note that I'm not trying to argue any related issues (such as the legality of abortions), just that claim made by OP.
Of course they can, we do it all the time. Children, for example, are people and they have very limited rights (especially in the area of freedom of movement).
If it's not ok to tell others what targets to use, then it's also not ok to tell others what targets to support.
W3C has zero leverage over the browser vendors. If they tried to do this the end result would be the same thing that happened to XHTML: the browser vendors would tell them to pound sand and announce that the de facto CSS standard would now be maintained by the WHATWG.
China has concentration camps.
Historically speaking the vast majority of them just didn't.
It's not about how interesting the data is to them, it's about the hubris of believing they are entitled to every last bit of our data.
Mathematics has had immutable variables since long before computers.
Reminds me of the arguments for Firefox getting rid of the "Old School" interface and copying Chrome to bring in new users. Didn't exactly work out very well...
Thats the kind of thing a good programming language is supposed to help with.
But in this situation the test will fail regardless of what you wrote in the test code. So the supposed usefulness of the test failure showing that you are actually testing what you mean to be testing is inexistent and the exercise of making it fail before making it pass is pointless.
If the doctor recommends that the treatment to a strong cold is to amputate your hands, will you just agree to it or will you apply some level of your own discernment?
> Doctors and Medical researches have a fundamentally better understanding of the human body that idiots on Twitter.
And yet there were (and are) a ton of doctors prescribind Hydroxicloroquine and Ivermectin to their covid patients.
> Which is why some medicine is 'behind the counter' and we don't argue about that very much.
We argue about it all the time. That's why people get second, third and fourth opinions. That's why there are medical panels. That's why people sue doctors for malpractice.
If you are ever able to find a definition of 'verifiably factually incorrect claims' that is accepted by everyone, the red squiggly is the trivial part.
That was my first instinct as well. But thinking about it, the second interaction seems to have solidified to him that the person didn't have any actual argument against his participation, that it was just an asshat being unpleasant.