Likewise HN both hates rust, and insists that we rewrite everything in rust. Viewing "the left" as a monolith is where you went wrong. Right now, "the left" includes groups willing to speak out about genocide in Palestine (that's "the left" this article is about). That group includes quite a lot of Muslims who support polygamy and don't support LGBT rights. But "the left" hates polygamy and loves LGBT rights. "The left" is also concerned about antisemitism and enjoys punching nazis. "The left" is also pacifist and doesn't think that anybody should be punching anybody. "The left" is also concerned about pollution, and doesn't like nuke power. "The left" is also concerned about global warming, and prefers nuke power. "The left" has whatever foolish combination of inconsistent beliefs you want it to, because "the left" is not one.
Neither the Left nor the Right are single ideologies. I was with you to the end, but calling “the left” a foolish combination of inconsistent beliefs makes as much sense as labeling the conflicting beliefs of Trump, McCain and Nick Fuentes as “the right”.
Could we say that in the current state of the human world there is always a way to create true statements based on arbitrary premises.
I don't know if I want to enter into a Gödelian discussion. I would take responsability for the lack of rigour in this context (ala Sokal). The conclusion of the first incompleteness theorem is that the system is either inconsistent or incomplete. Politics is in the former.
Makes sense, unfortunately. This is why we can't have nice tech/car things. It's barking up entirely the wrong tree and going after the wrong people for anticapitalist hactivism, but it would make sense to be a target of foreign state actors, financially-motivated criminals, and terroristic-adjacent chaos agents.
I'm curious when a TED talk-launched, standardized, open source, long-term sustainable, r2r, internationally-homologated, relatively long-range passenger EV will happen.
