spaceborn
At any rate, you've not really addressed my comment (the one you're replying to) - but I do feel as though your reply is meant to mock me, which, to my thinking, reinforces said observations. Excuse me if mockery wasn't your intention.
If Crake has such as a shallow understanding of the subject, as you say, perhaps you could enlighten all of us with your deep understanding of the subject? Merely asserting that someone's incorrect doesn't carry much weight by itself. This might lead one to think that you're unable to demonstrate the validity of your assertion by argument - i.e., that your statement is invalid.
Why is it that SJW types are so quick to insult and demean anyone who disagrees with them? It's very unpleasant. Your beliefs are not the forgone conclusion you treat them as.
If you have to misrepresent the views of those you disagree with in order to argue your own point, it might be the case that your own argument has no value.
Right on their front page, guy.
That said, I do sometimes write in Python and I have nothing against the language. This isn't meant to be an attack on Python.
Edit: also, the indentation in the first example is obviously just a means of illustrating that whitespace is non-significant with this project. I don't think they're suggesting code ought to be written without correct indentation.
Another commenter suggests the only reason to do something like this would be "emotional attachment"; all the huffing and puffing in these comments strikes me as exactly that, but in reverse.
Are they really dumb? Is the guy in the middle of the scheme who makes out with a profit dumb? There's known risk - some will decide they'll risk it. It may not be wise (I wouldn't participate, myself), but I wouldn't be so bold as to assume they're dumb.
> But those who participate are still morally complicit.
Who are these morally complicit participants if not the "obviously dumb" persons whom you just described? Are they victims with "serious issues" or are they morally corrupt enablers?
You may mean that the morally-corrupt-enabler(s) are whomever set this up, but that's not really what's suggested by such a broad phrase as "those who participate".
Are you saying that this position can simply be disregarded out of hand? That strikes me as disrespectful and self-important. If nothing else it is non-conducive to any actual discussion on the matter - unless all you want is an echo chamber to reaffirm your preexisting positions on the matter.
> The topic was the Google Doodle showing support for LGBT people
Specifically in relation to the LGBT issues surrounding the Olympics, i.e., Russia's "anti-gay" laws. The Russian laws are very much a part of this topic. You're being disingenuous.
How do you mean? I've not encountered any similar community which isn't also a political echo chamber - unless you're talking about something more specific that I'm unaware of.
How? The author clearly doesn't mean "out of business" when he says "dead". He means that what Microsoft once was, or what it represented, is dead. The idea once conveyed by the word "Microsoft" is dead. It's not sensationalist clickbait, it's a metaphor.