The US did not win because the US did not win. Crying about the reasons does not help. Usual FAFO. Does not hurt to think of consequences before starting something
South Korea and its allies did not win - but they did successfully defeat the North Korean invasion of South Korea that started the war. Resulting in 53 million people today who live good lives in a high tech liberal democracy instead of living in abject poverty under the dictatorship that controls the north.
Despite not winning, the consequences of the western nations going to war in this case appear to have been significantly positive. It's really the only war since WWII that I think I can confidently say that about.
No need for political lecture. This was a simple point of win / win not.
>"high tech liberal democracy"
After US involvement South Korea was anything but. It is only since 1987 that some semblance of normalcy had started to appear. Still it is a country practically owned by Chaebols and Hell Joseon work and life culture. Recent temporary martial law with the president's shenanigans does not inspire much confidence either. Call it whatever you want.
When you imply there was "fucking around and finding out", "starting something", and "[negative] consequences" to a war that had positive consequences, and which was a war the other side started, there absolutely is a need to correct that.
Edit: Just noting that at the time I responded the above post consisted entirely of "No need for political lecture. This was a simple point of win / win not". The rest was edited in after the fact.
Yes I edited it later to respond you your point of flourishing society. I should have put it under PS or edited. My fault. The original point still stands.
Edited.
I do understand that comparatively to North Korea SK is of course a huge win for people. However I think they would like to compare their lives with something better than one of the world's poverty and people's abuse champion
Promoting the idea of one data structure with many functions contradicts:
“If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident.”
And:
“Use simple algorithms as well as simple data structures.”
A data structure general enough to solve enough problems to be meaningful will either be poorly suited to some problems or have complex algorithms for those problems, or both.
There are reasons we don’t all use graph databases or triple stores, and rely on abstractions over our byte arrays.
I think you are badly misinterpreting the statement.
Let's say you're working for the DMV on a program for driver's licenses. The idea is to use one structure for driver's license data, as opposed to using one structure for new driver's licenses, a different one for renewals, and yet a third for expired ones, and a fourth one for name changes.
It is not saying that you should use byte arrays for driver's license records, so that you can use the same data structure for driver's license data and missile tracks. Generalize within your program, not across all possible programs running on all computers.
Eventually it all becomes about communication between teams of people.
"We just talk to each other" doesn't work well enough when you no longer know who to talk to. Email aliases for teams can help, so that you don't need to know who the right person is for your question, you just need to know the right team.
Things can't live in peoples' heads anymore. Task lists need to live somewhere. Tribal knowledge needs to live somewhere. Priorities need to live somewhere. Some tools may help. You probably eventually will need a bug database. Depending on what world you're in, you may need a requirements database.
You don't have time for people to not document everything.
Documentation has to be done once. (Well, it has to keep being updated. But for any change, the documentation only needs updated once.) But new people need to know about it over and over, because as you grow, you keep getting new people. You don't have time for each new person to have to go exploring to find the answer to each question. It's far less time to have one experienced person write down the answer... if you have each new person read all the relevant documents, and if you have people update the documents every time anything changes.
The last point is important. It has to become part of the culture. It should also become part of the code review/commit process.
At my last job, I was on the wrong end of this. Much of the initial code was written by two people. One was now a director; the other was incredibly busy. The code was extremely object oriented, to the point that it was very hard to figure out where anything happened and therefore where changes should be made. The documentation was a number of UML diagrams.
The result was that new people (including yours truly) wasted huge amounts of time trying to find their way around in the code. Even after being there for three years (and with over 35 years of experience), I still found the code very hard to work with.
What that code needed was someone (one particular someone) to take a solid month and work on writing good beginner-to-intermediate documentation for the code base. It would have saved literally man-years of time for new people.
That sounds like me. There's a 1:1 correlation between how many cups of coffee I've had and the number of languages I speak.
And like a true computer nerd, of course it's an unsigned integer, meaning if I drink too much coffee I'm back to grunting only (this time on the toilet)
Seriously, happiness is a psychiatric disorder? Rare, sure, but a disorder? That's the craziest thing I've heard since... well, since the Iran war, I guess, so not very long. Still, that's nuts. I cannot imagine the world view that it must take to look at happiness that way.
There's an interesting paradox hiding in plain sight here: Xi imported the anticorruption strat from Singapore, so superficially, PH below is correct.
Since SG has the opposite problem from China: ((low) gov corruption XOR (low) social trust).
The paradox is that the strat will have wildly different failure modes in SG vs CN or JP (all are aware of this!)
Note also that SG is consistently ranked in the top 10 together with the Nordics+NZ+IE+CH in spite of this failure mode..
My informed opinion is that LDP+loyalist-bureaucrats have been shipping and failing the same strat for years-- LDP dominance is the tell. Any critique of Xi's policy can be backed with JP data. Prediction: Xi will succeed if and only if CPC fall (or do the ship-of-theseus thing)
Yeah, that's pretty much tailor-made to be the official resource for an experienced programmer to get an overview of C++ as it stands. Fairly slim book so it's approachable.
I, too, am getting very tired of American leaders finding wars for Americans to die in.
> I’m American and would absolutely support military action against Israel.
Only took you one more sentence to find a new war for our people to die in.
reply