TorbjornLunde

Different moral considerations sometimes come in conflict forcing you to choose between different compromises.

Avoiding harm is a moral principle I'm sure many share and there are cases where this conflicts with being honest. If you go down this “you should never lie” you are effectively choosing to do the harm because you prioritise honesty. Maybe that's right in that situation, but you are doing a compromise between ethical principles in either case.

Personally I used to be never-ever-lie dogmatic, but as I've lived my thinking as evolved and I definitely think there exists cases where lying is the more ethical option. However, it's important to me that it's strongly ethically justified and not just something you do because it's the most easy or whatever.

My bet is the licensing stuff which can make it difficult/expensive to make proprietary apps with it. (In practice, I know the picture is a bit complicated.)

Also, personally, while QML probably is the nicest OOP/bindings style UI framework I've seen, it's still not as nice as any of the reactive ones (i.e. React, Vue, Angular2, Flutter, etc…).

Web != internet.

HTTP, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc are web technologies.

TCP/IP (among other things) are internet technologies.

Web tech builds upon internet tech.

TypeScript's complexity comes from trying to model typical JavaScript patterns using a compile-time type system.

It turns out trying to model a dynamic language's typical usage at compile-time is lead to some complicated stuff.

Personally I think it's mostly worth it since most of that is hidden behind API-boundries or (more commonly) in type-definition files and your own code typically either has really simple type annotations or is inferred (i.e. not explicitly type annotated).

But I see your point and it does sorta feel a bit C++-like in this respect sometimes.

One problem with banning plastic straws as well is that many disabled people are dependent on them to be able to drink. AFAIK the alternatives (other kinds of straws) don't work well.

> I always thought this was communism

Communism can be slightly confusing to talk about as it describes both a specific kind of society, ideology/ideologies and a kind of state. It's certainly one kind of socialism.

Communism as society (sometimes called ”full communism”: A) Is class-less This means that there are no groups of people who hold own/power of ”means of production” (workplaces) at the expenses of those who don't. B) State-less: a society that is not organised through a state at all. (This is why the term ”communist state” is funny.) C) Resource philosophy organised along: contribute based on ability, get based on need. D) It doesn't really claim to solve any other problems. This would not be a perfect society, only one without class conflict and state violence.

Communist ideologies are ideologies whose goal it is to attain communism as society. Examples of this are Leninism (what is often meant by ”communism” in the west), various forms of Marxism, Anarchocommunism/Libertarian Communism.

Leninist and other Marxists want to attain communism through a specific kind of state, but this state is a means to an end and the state itself is meant to vanish in the transition to ”full communism”.

Libcom/Ancoms argue that you should just skip the whole state part (and that it would ruin it anyway) and just try to build a communist society (stateless, remember) directly.

(Some philosophies fall between these philosophies.)

Of course, nobody has managed to achieve a communist society (and AFAIK few if any have claimed to do so). If this is possible or not I leave to you consider.

> and that socialism roughly means the workplace is owned by the government.

State socialists (i.e. Leninists, many Marxists, many radical democratic socialists) argue that workers can own their workplaces through a state in which they hold power.

Non-state socialists (i.e. anarchists, libertarian socialists, etc, ) argue that the worker control and ownership much be more direct and that society should be organised in a decentralised fashion.

There are some that fall between these dichotomies.

-----

I'm not a political science academic by any stretch, so sorry if I got some details wrong here.

---

EDIT: One difference between communism and other forms of socialism is that the communists generally more negative to markets than others. This is most clear in anarchist circles where you'll find libertarian communists argue with left-wing market socialists and such.

Socialism means that the workplace are owned and controlled by the workers. You can still have a marketplace of such workplaces.

There are forms of socialism that do include a free market (i.e. left-wing market socialism, etc…)

It's complicated. We are also known for being some of the most conformist cultures in the world.

Anybody used it compiled to JavaScript? What’s your experience? How does it compare to TypeScript?

I think Oculus Rift i combination with something like Leap could lead the way for useful 3D-interfaces. I don’t like the term VR reality. To me it’s the skeuomorphism of the 3D-world. Instead of trying to simulate the real world, why not use 3D to express more abstract concepts (like we already are doing with 2D screens).

Of course, in time something like holograms will be more relevant, but in the mean time I think things like Oculus Rift in combination with other technologies can be a nice stop-gap.

Talking about “true” feminism is almost meaningless (or at least very imprecise). There are several strands of feminism. Radical feminism in particular tend to have a complete disregard for men’s issues, but my experience is that there are many moderate feminist who do care about gender issues on all sides.

I think Adobe have slowly killed Fireworks for years by slowly letting it languish (as opposed to the swift axe that cut Freehand).