scatterhead

That's a strawman. No one is arguing against that.

How a resource is being used by foreign corporations is an important input to policy decisions.

We're at a point in today's society where the mere suggestion that nationality might be relevant is met with accusations of xenophobia. It's the same way with race or sex.

The second sentence explains why the nationality matters:

> Some farms are foreign-owned and are shipping the crop to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal to grow because it takes too much water.

In this globalistic world it's worth considering that stringent policy in one area of the world can be worked around by taking advantage of lax policy in another area of the world. It's not xenophobic to talk about that. It would be ignorant not to.

I mean.. they don't have any. So maybe you didn't pay attention. Sure, if you're typing in the name of a tourist destination, that's fine. But how do you find a person's house?

In CR the addresses are referential. So you might live "300 meters south of the retirement home, 100 East, red door".

They aren't. Nathan J. Robinson (author of this article) is. Here's the full quote from the Obama speech.

> I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

You can read this charitably (a passionate person who's excited about the collective project being embarked upon) or uncharitably (not very humble to connect your own presidency to the salvation of humanity). But it's total bullshit to read that as:

> a man who manipulated people’s emotions with stirring messianic rhetoric about how his election would mean the oceans would stop rising and change would come to the land, then delivered eight years of milquetoast centrism

If this is manipulating people, then literally every politician (not to mention every football coach) to ever have existed has manipulated people, and the core argument of the article shrinks to nothingness.

Also, it's a plain lie. Obama never said he would solve these problems -- much the opposite, he conditioned the solutions on the people being willing to work for it.

Funnily enough, if anything this irony bolsters the author's point that bullshit can be found anywhere. Even articles about bullshitters are themselves full of bullshit.

This article is almost The Onion worthy.

Leaving out the of makes it sound like a much more interesting book, IMO ;)

But why? These ideas are elegant but usually not practical. Performance usually ends up forcing us back to ole faithful (mutability).

What's the underlying point you're trying to get across? It doesn't seem like a productive thing to go on about.

You seem to be missing the point that we are stuck with who we are. Our mental and physical faculties are handed down to us. We receive them, even though they define us. We experience ourselves.

It's unambiguously true that no one chose their genes or their childhood environment. That statement doesn't require a metaphysical chooser who might have made the choice.

"an era of increased skepticism towards the idea of objective truth" is the idea.

> seem 'interesting' without saying much is to elicit intrigue - or mystery, so you want to seem mysterious.

I'm sure there are people to whom that applies. But it doesn't seem likely to be widely applicable to me. Most people just aren't going for the "dark and mysterious" vibe.

For example, throwing in phrases like "with your experience, you would know that..." or "that thing you said was hilarious" make people feel good, hopefully while also being true. This is a huge part of likeability.

Computer graphics are meant to be perceived through human eyeballs. So we can count on the eyes continuing to blur point lights whether you're looking at a screen or at outer space.

If your documentation doesn't have a search feature, that's the first thing you need to fix.

If you're just bad at searching, well that's a very valuable and learnable skill.

> like setting up my dev environment

> the documentation which had been written both didn't include it (it was customer-facing

The user docs and the dev docs should be different corpses, searchable separately. What you describe sounds very disorganized.

Why? How often does anyone do anything with the data they've exported from some service?

Maybe it's just me. But I feel like starting over setting up all your to-do tasks and what-not is going to take less time then writing some script to parse data from one format and upload it to some new system. Especially given that there will be a delta in featuresets.

Hmm..

> The printing press is not transformative because the printed text is not used for some other purpose, it is used to do exactly it's original job.

See the error in your logic? The potentially transformative part is not the code itself. It's the impact to the process of creating the code.

Gopher.

> Is it the Erlang or the Elixir folks to just say, paraphrased, "let it die"?

That sounds like panic. When the Erlang folks say that, they're talking about letting a process die. The rest of the application is in different processes and doesn't get taken down. So the offending process can be rebooted and operations can continue.

> if err != nil { return err } // put it on one line. It's clean and natural.

Oh.. erm... well that's explicitly not letting it die. That's returning it and forcing it to be manually "dealt with", as you put it. It seems like you're contradicting yourself.

Also, the article explains that returning without context is often a bad idea.

I feel like I'm burning out without even accomplishing anything. Does anyone else feel this way?