throwaway333444

Since it’s a* FAQ… Also that pelican is pretty fly

>> Congress was supposed to generally be weak and deadlocked unless an overwhelming majority of people wanted something.

> The overwhelming majority of people do want a lot of things.

While the language is close these aren’t the same. Specifically the parent is saying that people need to want the same thing. Claiming that people want lots of things with no consideration of what they are or even how the things are done falls far short of the goal.

> the fact that the Senate gives Wyoming and Vermont the same power as California and Texas prevents that.

Have you considered that our founding documents/government was structured this way on purpose? It was a major incentive for encouraging small states such as Wyoming to join the union. Without this mechanism for giving smaller states an equal influence relative to other states many would not have joined the union.

> That's a more fair claim, but both goes without saying (because it's what we're talking about) and is still misleading

Calling the truth misleading feels pretty 1984 to me but ignoring that for a moment. The truth is that Netease & Blizzard had some sort of disagreement resulting in all Blizzard games being yanked from China. It didn’t matter that Blizzard had a HQ there (which netease live-streamed the destruction of 1) or that they had nearly 2 decades of history of the “good” behavior you mention. At the end of the day Blizzard was forced out as soon as the partnership with the local Chinese company ended. Or in keeping with my hyperbolic scenario as soon as the local “mobsters” stopped getting their cut.

> That's true for a lot of other companies, everything from McDonalds to Ford. It's just social media companies whining.

> Do basic research and stop watching the news

Well let’s see using the first company you listed as an example McDonald’s is a minority partner in their China business 2.

“Last month, the U.S.-based burger maker cut a deal to repurchase the 28% stake in its China business Carlyle Group took in 2017, giving it a 48% share…. One advantage for McDonald’s: its majority partner in the China business, CITIC, provides top-level political cover, … Having a very powerful Chinese state-owned conglomerate as a partner means they are not going to be at the forefront of the geopolitical situation; that is quite important," Yu said.”

> Are you seriously claiming that American companies can't operate there?

That is straw-man & no I’m not.

I suppose at a high level my point is a) Blizzard was allowed there because they paid via the Joint Venutre not because of any “moral” behavior and b) China requires Joint Ventures or other similar arrangements for companies to get access to the China market. For one reason or another China views this as being in China’s best interest. Ok so be it but one shouldn’t be surprised that eventually another country would enact similar laws that it believes are in its own best interest. It just so happens that America is first with Tik Tok being the concern that forced the issue. So now the “reasonable”/legal deal for Tik Tok (& soon others I expect) will be different. As I said before there is no moral high ground here, just basic game theory.

> some of you really can't be helped

While this is probably not over the line. It’s best to try and refrain from personal attacks or anything approaching it. We just happen to have differing opinions on this topic and that’s ok. In fact we may learn something by discussing, otherwise what’s the point of commenting?

Sources 1: https://gamerant.com/netease-livestreams-destruction-chinese... 2: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/lovin-it-mc...

Today WoW is unavailable in China. The linked article indicates a return to China which AFAIK is not live yet. My statement is true, and the lack of WoW in China for at least a time period will always be true. But as previously mentioned this point isn’t that important. I just found it amusing that the example you used for a company behaving well in China wasn’t even in China at the time.

Actually you haven’t been able to play WoW in China for a ~year. But that’s largely irrelevant to your point.

More specifically Blizzard is able to bring their product to everywhere else in the world. The fact that they choose to “work” with a local partner in China to get access to that market reads more to me like a government run racket / forced rent seeking than anything else.

> approach China with realistic deals are allowed to operate there

On a more hyperbolic note, I’m sure many people in the past paid off mobsters for the privilege of doing business in certain areas with the rationale they were being “realistic”.

To that end if the US wants to start treating Chinese backed companies a similar way (laws that distort the market) I’m not surprised. China has no moral high ground here. Or more simply your point cuts both ways.

> doesn't mean other countries have to allow it.

Source?

The problem with this theory is that it wasn’t just Robinhood. There were literally like a dozen or so firms that halted buying. Some of which were well known long established firms (Merrill, etrade).

These firms should have had no problem continuing allowing purchasing.

Griffin may have apologized but has since rescinded that apology and subsequently published the image again. And as of this writing it’s been up for 2 months.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/348388-kat...

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/524681-kat...

Setting most (but not all) system preference using the terminal. It made doing clean installs every year so much easier. https://github.com/mathiasbynens/dotfiles/blob/main/.macos

GitHub homepage: https://github.com/timothycrosley/isort

The next release of swift (5.3) is scheduled to have Windows support (along with more Linux distros) https://swift.org/blog/5-3-release-process/

Additionally, the next version of macOS, out this fall, will remove/hide the system version of python (python2) from users.

Look under Scripting Language Runtimes

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos_release_note...

You appear to be referring to shell scripts. I do not have an opinion on shell script capitalization. However, my opinion on capital keywords in SQL is that it is a relic of an older time when it was used to help visual parsing of the query.

Going further I’m of the opinion that color syntax highlighting does that job far better thus rendering the capital convention obsolete.

Note: you may have a different opinion than me and if you do the laws of the code formatting holy war demand that I assert that you’d be wrong.

The new versions of sql don’t require capital letters on all the keywords. :p

More seriously color syntax highlighting works far better than capitalizing almost everything in sight. I’d recommend dropping the caps convention.

I haven’t switched yet but you are correct the general consensus is that vscode is superior to atom. That said Microsoft slowly suffocating vscodes largest competitor still feels like extinguish.

Here’s to hoping Xi does well and delivers on its promises

This is probably true. My preference is for multiple choices for lightweight IDEs whereas Microsoft probably prefers that everyone just uses vscode.

Not sure how relevant it is but Microsoft’s acquisition of github has kiled atom’s written-in-rust successor xray. This along with what feels like slower updates and less focus on atom feels very much like embrace extend extinguish. So in my books Microsoft is still quite evil.

https://github.com/atom/xray/issues/177#issuecomment-4796313...

The large number of open issues is a valid complaint although that is more of an indicator of popularity. As for the pace of development I’d challenge you to name another SQL IDE that releases updates twice a month. (Note: The exception was the last release cycle which took 3 weeks rather than 2 but that was for the 6.0 release)

I had the same issue. I’ve found that if it the update hangs, I can quit atom and wait a few moments and the update will go through.

>I don't like what they seem to be doing, but Harvard is a private university - they should be able to recruit who they want to based on their own criteria.

So your position is that they are free to racially discriminate against candidates because they are a private university?

> Harvard has testified that race, when considered in admissions, can only help, not hurt, a student’s chances of getting in.

So if your race matches their preference they improve your odds of admittance. Since the number of admissions is fixed this reduces the odds of those who have a race that doesn’t match their preference.

IANAL but it sounds like Harvard just admitted that they were guilty.

Your comment about iOS gaming implies that it is an inferior platform relative to Android in terms of gaming. In reality despite Apples myopic attitude towards desktop gaming their mobile gaming platform is better than androids by a significant margin.

Consider the following: 1) Per user revenue in iOS out paces per user revenue in Android by so much that many titles make more on iOS than they do on Android despite Android having ~70% of the market

2) Apples hardware & os provide superior performance relative to even premium Android phones despite Apples compulsion towards thinner. (This is largely due to vulkans infancy compared to the relative maturity of metal)

3) fragmentation

4) walled garden is actually a plus for developers who worry about apk sharing

5) Apples store does business in China making Apple a one stop shop for the world whereas android requires at least one separate partner just for China.

Note: Please pardon any grammar, spelling, & formatting errors due to this response originating from a mobile device