SquishyPanda23

> Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance.

I'm curious to hear what you think Wikipedia's political stance is?

If somebody talking about their disability triggers you into such a strong political reaction, then maybe consider the possibility that you have let your own identity politics take too much control over your life.

> Also i have a distaste of the author listing their "disabilities" in their twitter bio.

People generally prefer disabled people not to talk about their disabilities or be public about them. But this sort of openness is incredibly useful. It's the internet and it's almost 2021. Let people talk about what they want to without being the internet police.

The license wasn't changed. But yes, generally you can make changes to MIT code that aren't released under the MIT license.

> It's definitely the case that at a given snapshot of the repository which has copyrighted code owned by someone else the copyright notice has to be there at that same revision.

This isn't in the license. Where is this laid out?

I'm just curious, is Microsoft actually in violation of the MIT license here?

All future changes to this repo are copyright Microsoft, so Microsoft's copyright should be in the statement.

Arguably there should be an additional statement indicating that LesnyRumcajs holds copyright to bits of code that Microsoft hasn't changed.

But

(1) exactly which bits have LesnyRumcajs's copyright would have to be verified by examining source control history. Since LesnyRumcajs's copyright statement is visible on any commit where LesnyRumcajs holds copyright, this setup makes actually makes it easy to verify which portions LesnyRumcajs has copyright claims on.

(2) Including LesnyRumcajs's copyright statement in repo history seems to be all that the MIT license requires. The license doesn't forbid there being another more easily accessible copyright notice that doesn't list all copyright holders. It only requires that LesnyRumcajs's statement be included in all copies of the software, which it currently is.

Yes of course it's in dispute. It's so dominant a dispute in intelligence research that it's hard to imagine anyone being familiar with research on IQ and not knowing that it's in dispute.

IQ tests are maybe ok at doing population-level correlations, but not at predicting the success of any given individual. Tons of things are correlated with intelligence, and IQ has the virtue that it's easy to measure. So it has uses for things like research studies.

But as an actual filter when you care about performance it's not great. Things like high school GPA are easier to measure and more predictive of college success.

This is a very well studied field, just do a Google search

It's not sufficient that a metric be objective. The student's astrological sign is objective. But it's not a useful measure of college readiness.

Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success when controlling for other variables. And they're trivial to game.

They're a relic of back when people believed in IQ tests were useful selection criteria. Maybe there will be standardized tests in the future that are more useful, but we don't have those yet.

It's usually not obvious where to put the seams ahead of time so you can cut them when you need to split into microservices.

Plus keeping the API boundaries clean costs time and resources, and it's tempting to violate them just to launch this one feature. This extra discipline doesn't have any payoff in the short term, and it has unknown payoff in the long term because you're not sure you drew the boundaries ahead of time anyway.

So I think in practice what happens is you create a monolith and just eat the cost of untangling it when the team gets too big or whatever.

I'm sorry I've hurt your feelings.

I'm sorry I've hurt your feelings.

> To be readable, usable.

Go doesn't particularly value readability or usability. For example, the short variable name convention makes it harder to read code you're unfamiliar with, and there are a number of noticeable usability shortcomings, some of which are mentioned in the article.

I think Go's design goals were really to (1) reduce compilation time, which explains why Go has human programmers do work that compilers do in other languages, (2) be statically typed and compiled, so you can use it conveniently for microservices, and (3) have syntax somewhat similar to Python.

I think of Go as the successor to Java. Go is to Python as Java was to C++. That, plus the integration with many libraries is why it's taken off in some niches.

Haha, no problem. I do that a lot too :)

You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. Otherwise all bar fights would end in gun violence like in a cheesy Western film.

> nobody except the sender, the receiver and the service provider can read the messages

E2EE means the service provider cannot read the messages.

Only the sender and receiver can.