The overhead and maintenance involved in setting up these home automations have always seemed to spend more time than it saves. I'm not convinced that automatic lighting is better than just flipping a light switch.
Beyond the "cool" factor I'm with you. I don't know what the benefits would be but I can definitely see it being a pain to maintain and the extra cost in both time and money for running these automation do not seem worth it. I would definitely like to be proven wrong, but I have not seen anything to date.
> "This family has two mommies. They love each other so proudly and they all go marching in... the... big parade," sing the lyrics. Other terms featured include "trans," "non-binary" and "queer."
> “Love is love is love you see, and everyone should love proudly,”
Acknowledging LGBTQ people are capable of love is somehow an example of “culture war”. It’s incredible people can be so bothered by a simple, sweet message.
yes, acceptance of others is an overly political message to those of a certain political persuasion. can’t have kids running around thinking whatever they grow into might be ok if it doesn’t comport with mommy and daddy’s worldview.
Whatever kids grow up into is not okay with most parents. I’d imagine almost everyone would agree with that statement. There are probably traits you wouldn’t want your children to have. You probably wouldn’t be okay with them being gambling or drug addicts, racist, murderers, uneducated, etc.
If parents were truly okay with their children growing up into whatever they happen to grow into, there would be no reason for the parents to impart morals, life lessons, education, proper nutrition, etc., to children. The fact that, for the entire existence of humankind (so far as I can tell), we seem to have done those things, it seems to me that all parents strongly care about what their children grow up to be like.
Why does the idea of a parent wanting to impart their vision of how the world ought to be offend you? If the shoe were on the other foot, and you wanted your children to be raised a particular way, would you appreciate being ridiculed for that?
>You probably wouldn’t be okay with them being gambling or drug addicts, racist, murderers, uneducated, etc.
Some are objective. Not much interpretation to whaty a gambler or drug addict is. But the sad thing is that "racism" and especially "educated" are highly subjective.
>Why does the idea of a parent wanting to impart their vision of how the world ought to be offend you?
Depends on the vision. Obviously as a black man I'd have an issue with people who's "vision" is that black people are dangerous, dumb, and dirty. I imagine it's the exact same for a lesbian, or a trans person, or even a not rich person.
And of course not all disagreements are equal. I may not prefer a helicopter approach but that is ultimately a choice that does not impact me nor my family. The former, not so much. Your freedom ends where mine begins.
It goes both ways. Maybe you'll teach your kids to be open and tolerant to everything but they'll grow up, convert to Catholicism, and -- gasp -- vote conservative.
Yes, i fully recognize that at least one of my children is likely to enjoy baseball and vote for a Republican at least once in their life, despite my best efforts to show them the light. I will love them anyway.
well, everything is political, but i wasn’t making it so. i just really hate baseball and have never encouraged my kids to play the sport because of that.
Perhaps you mean 'vote reactionary', as the religious tend to do? Voting conservative means the Democratic party these days - general support of institutions, the United States's standing in the world, law and order, individual freedoms, fiscal responsibility. The contemporary Republican party has rejected these things, instead focusing on some imagined idyllic past and pushing for radical change towards it. The Democratic party certainly has its things it wants to change, but they're much more incremental and not the sweeping sea change of the current Republican agenda.
Bluey is targeted towards pre-school children. I'm not really bothered if my 4-year-old daughter sees stuff like this, it's just that she won't really understand things like "non-binary". It seems like a topic more appropriate for older children - maybe from age 8 or later?
At my kids’ childcare, by far the most popular educator is non-binary. They do a great job of listening to the kids, and talking to them without talking down to them. Come to think of it, the way they interact with the kids actually reminds me a fair bit of the parents in Bluey.
Both my kids (3 and 5 but now at school) have said stuff like “Today we did x with Greg. He’s not exactly a boy and not exactly a girl.” Then they get on with their day. To them, it’s just another person that’s a bit different to them.
I live in a pretty liberal European city, yet I haven't met any non-binary person. I know exactly one trans person, and only remotely (she lives in US). I guess to me, this topic seems "advanced", perhaps "irrelevant" in a way for such a small kid. There are many other things she needs to learn about, which she will commonly experience in the real world.
80s in California... there was a sizable but not exactly large group. No one cared. We all knew "old people" were supposed to care, but it was more likely just a thing everyone had to pretend to care about on TV. None of the old people I knew cared either.
Depends on the circle. Tech industry in California, know 2 NBs, and 2 trans people (and then 2 more I knew transitioned after I left work and contact with them). I guess that does fit all the liberal stereotypes that people like to throw at my State.
I'm in London, and I've met a few non-binary people (enbys), and had at least two trans people in my school (one student, one teaching assistant; this was in the mid-2000s).
> Some people believe that whether you're a woman or a man is a thought in your head, and they also believe that these thoughts mean you can be neither, which they call 'non-binary'. It's helpful to respect these people's beliefs and act as if they are true, because they can get very angry and vindictive if you don't agree with them.
And then we ask why some kids wind up entrenched away from economic opportunity…
Like, if your only coping mechanisms for beliefs you disagree with—particularly about someone else’s private affairs—rise out of fear of retribution, you shouldn’t be in a decision-making role of any kind. It’s somewhat sad to see that baked into a kid from the get go, but maybe they’ll get over it without winding up resentful for the handicap.
The point is it's not a private affair. Retribution from people who react harmfully when others do not share their beliefs is a real thing, ask anyone who was brought up in a strict religious environment who became a non-believer. Sometimes the easiest path is minimal appeasement to avoid conflict where you'll end up worse off.
Someone's sexuality or gender identity sure is. Given languages' pronouns evolve (e.g. a universal "you" in place of the informal "thou", or the aborted deprecation of "y'all"), that's not a reasonable hang-up.
> the easiest path is minimal appeasement to avoid conflict where you'll end up worse off
Sure, and instinctive conflict avoidance is a valid life strategy. It's just bad build for a decision maker. Someone conditioned in that behaviour is going into life with opportunities cordoned off.
Perhaps you should teach children that it's good to respect people's beliefs because being nice to people is good?
I think it's ironically tragic that in an attempt to get people to respect your beliefs more, you argue that the main reason to do so it out of fear of retribution.
The one thing that could be noted on this point of seeing a toddler-focussed TV show with an LGBTQ acceptance theme, is that there are a lot of other acceptance-worthy themes out there that never make it into toddlers' TV shows. I will not make a list because obviously that would be whataboutism, virtue signalling, I don't know.
That too - the pantomime dame character is basically just men ridiculing middle-age women, while sending a message to any children watching that it's acceptable to do so. It's as offensively sexist as the drag queens.
If I'd written a comment about the racism inherent in 'blackface' performance regarding its mockery of black people, would you claim I was redefining racism?
Yes, you did. Both blackface and drag performance have particular histories you're intentionally and erroneously conflating. The former is racist in its origin. The latter is not misogynistic in either its origin or contemporaneous performance.
Drag is men dressing up as caricatures of women. They wear costumes intended to represent women and mimic female bodies, adopt a 'woman' persona under a feminised and often heavily sexualised name, and act out every demeaning, offensive stereotype of women for laughs, often leaning heavily on mocking women's bodies and the physical experiences exclusive to women: pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding, menstruation, and sometimes even abortion. Then they take off those costumes and get to go about their lives as men when they aren't doing this, without having to live under those same stereotypes they helped perpetuate for fun or money. Meanwhile, women are expected to laugh, clap along and celebrate this insult. This mockery of women isn't exactly subtle.
So, please explain the reasoning behind your belief that drag is not misogynistic.
I guess you think that bodybuilders, models, and actors (film and especially Theatre) are all misandric/misogynistic as well? They fit all the items above as well.
I guess I see why the comment upstream was flagged.
Please explain your logic more clearly, I don't see the connection you're making between the occupations you mentioned and men dressing up to make an offensive mockery of women in the way they do for drag.
>They wear costumes intended to represent [Person]
>adopt a persona under Fake name
>act out every demeaning, offensive stereotype for s/laughs/entertainment, boften leaning heavily on the physical experiences.
>Then they take off those costumes and get to go about their lives, without having to live under those same stereotypes they helped perpetuate for fun or money
How is RuPaul doing anything different that America's next top model, Hollywood, or any other competition based on looks doing? It's just personal interpretations if you view it as empowering, demeaning, or even bigoted. They all get the same accusations levied at them after all.
The proposal[1] explains several cases where try…finally is verbose or even can result in subtle errors. The upshot for me is that this feature adds RAII to JavaScript. It makes resource management convenient and more maintainable. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Based on my reading of the spec, you can't actually return a resource, since the disposal semantics need to map exactly to calling [Symbol.dispose] in a finally block at the end of the current block. Also, unlike C#, you can have multiple using statements in the same block, which will be disposed of in LIFO order.
Not sure if you’re just trying to advertise your project, but I wouldn’t use Pyodide in that case. I’d personally rather use the tool linked in the OP article for something like an OS in the browser
In fact it seems that WASI build environment is not supporting asynchronous syscalls. I think it will be needed for integrating Python apps in a web browser
Makes it very much seem like you were only sorry you got caught — and were actually never sorry and didn’t learn from what should have been a teachable moment. Sad.
I think it's fair to evaluate a company's behavior before engaging in business with them. And I personally dislike persons in power abusing their position, which is why I remembered the company name almost two years later.
I haven't heard of any similar behavior since then, which is a good sign. But a reputation can be a hard thing to shake. The CEO should have considered that before doing what he did.
Replit doesn't have special mod powers. A HN moderator downweighted this subthread, the same way we do any generic/indignant/offtopic subthread when we see it. That's standard HN moderation.
I tried phind after seeing it linked here a few times. It felt like it was a slower Google search with extra steps. The sources it used for the answers were the sources I would have found by searching "site:stackoverflow.com [my question]". It did distill the information decently well, but I'm skeptical it properly pulls in the context that the comment replies to the question/answers provides
Jagex is not using bot farms, they’re relying on gold farmers to produce in game resources.
The Old School RuneScape economy relies on these gold farmers because most players don’t want to take the time to gather the resources themselves. Most players purchase resources from the games global market, the grand exchange, with the money going to both gold farmers and regular players.
Theres another aspect though, and this is where the gold farmers make their real life money: They sell their in game gold to players who are essentially cheating by trading real life money in exchange for large sums of in game money. These players then use this in game money to more quickly level up skills.
I’m not sure Jagex can clamp down on this cheating without breaking their in game economy.
As a side note, there’s a fairly popular game mode in OSRS called Iron Man where you’re forced to acquire resources purely via the tedious game mechanics instead of purchasing via the grand exchange. It’s a bit masochistic, but I enjoy it personally.
Real life money for gold is sanctioned by Jagex if done through bonds. Bonds are about 3x more expensive than the black market but bonds can't get you banned because Jagex gets a cut.
> It's because of this and that, hundreds of excuses that dance around the simple truth: you're an incompetent programmer.
Classic arrogance and naivety from a Casey follower. Name call all you want, you can't hand wave the reality that the business determines the requirements, and in my industry they don't care about performance until it's a noticeable problem. Oh and the requirements they gave you are solving problem X when they really want to solve problem Y, so your optimal solution to problem X needs to be deleted.
I write correct, readable code as performant as it can be in the time I'm allotted. Call me incompetent, but it's what I'm hired to do.
All this bickering and harsh feelings are stemming from the author's inability to understand that different industries have different priorities.
> in my industry they don't care about performance until it's a noticeable problem
Yeah, I've done several dozen 10x or more performance improvements on our codebase. It's not always trivial, but most of the time it's not super-hard either.
In fact just today I did a 10x speedup of a query. After a couple of hours analyzing the issue, the fix was relatively simple: populate some temp tables before running the main query. A bit more complex than just running the query, but not terribly so.
Why hadn't we done that before? Because a customer suddenly got 1000x the volume of the previously largest user of that module, and so performance was suddenly not acceptable. It's 5 years since we introduced the module...
I don't think the structure of the "business requirements" argument is correct, and I will try to explain why.
To a first approximation, the reason modern software is slow isn't due to failure to optimize this algorithm or that code path, but rather the entire pancake stack of slow defaults — frameworks, runtimes, architectures, design patterns, etc. — where, before you even sit down and write a line of "business logic" code, or code that does something, you're already living inside a slow framework written in a slow language on top of a slow runtime inside a container with a server-client architecture where every RPC call is a JSON blob POSTed over HTTP or something. This is considered industry standard.
The "business requirements" guy is basically saying, I have to ship this thing by friday, I'm just going to pick the industry standard tools that let me write a few lines of code to do the thing I need to do. Ok, but that's the tradeoff he's making. He's deciding to pick up extremely slow tools for the sake of meeting his immediate deadline. That decision is producing unacceptable results.
It's not enough just to say people have different priorities. Selecting an appropriate point on multivariate system of tradeoffs is part of the skill of being a programmer. And if there's no point on the curve that delivers acceptable results in all categories — if, given a certain set of tools, it's not possible to ship quickly and deliver acceptable performance — then it should be an impetus for the programmer, the craftsman, to find better tools, improve his skills, push the "production curve" outward, until he can meet all the requirements.
For instance, a large percentage of modern programmers don't really know how to program from first principles, and tell the computer to do precisely and only the thing it needs to do. Essentially they only know how to glue tools together. Then in their head they're like, well gee, given that skillset, I could either (1) spend a bunch of time optimizing "hot spots," writing crazy algorithms, heroically trying to fight through all that slowness... or I could just (2) deliver the business logic and call it a day. Then they call this "prioritizing business requirements." No, there's a third, alternative, better option, which is to use better tools, which might initially be harder and more time consuming and less ergonomic to use, and then learning to get good with those tools, putting in the practice, recognizing patterns, thinking faster over time, coding faster... all of this is part of what mastering the trade of programming is about.
At the end of the day, there is just an ethic of self improvement and craftsmanship that is totally missing from programming today, and it surfaces whenever this debate comes up.
reply