cipheredStones

Every guy named Gary is named after Gary, Indiana. Gary Cooper named himself after the town, and then got very, very popular.

Well, programming is a tool, right? There are clearly incorrect ways to program, but that doesn't mean there's one correct way to program - because it depends on what you're trying to make.

It's incorrect to make a bookshelf that can't hold the weight of books, but IKEA isn't incorrect to make a crappy-but-adequate bookshelf that will get given away when you move, and a master carpenter isn't incorrect to make an expensive-but-beautiful bookshelf that will be used for many decades.

A seed-stage startup trying to see if anyone cares about their product at all should probably accept it being 100x slower than it theoretically could be. And the Linux maintainers should be working hard to shave milliseconds.

> 100% land value tax will get rid of those too.

How many divisions does Henry George have?

It's not really relevant to bring in radical overhauls to our economic system when people are talking about what politically-possible changes might help improve the housing market.

> Gen Z only voted democrat by a 4% margin

Yes, which is not remotely the same claim as

> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election [and therefore Zuckerberg needed to change political course for his social media to stay relevant]

which is the false claim I was responding to.

> If those numbers hold democrats have no path to winning national elections

Yes, it's certainly the case that if Democrats keep getting the same percentage of votes as in elections they lost badly, they'll keep losing elections.

> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election

What on earth are you talking about? 18-29 year olds were the most Democratic age group, as usual. 18-29 year old men might have slightly favored Trump, but to a significantly lower degree than older men.

Did you just arrive from Mars to judge our discourse norms?

It's completely typical to expect someone who makes a surprising factual claim to back it up with evidence. You're talking to them because you think they might know something you don't, and be able to point to how they know it - or they might not, and them offering weak or non-existent evidence would show that.

Something being in a business's best interests is very far from a guarantee that it'll happen.

I've worked on a team in a household-name big tech company where our mission was almost exactly "make sure we're not blowing up our most important customers for no reason". It's not nearly as easy as it sounds: defining who's important is hard, and defining what should and shouldn't be allowed is hard, and then implementing that all correctly and avoiding drift over time is tricky too.

Is there a known mechanism by which that happens? Or was it just a weird idiosyncrasy of her body and her diseases?

"Doctors won't mention that losing weight and exercising more will make you healthier" is quite a take.

I've heard exactly the opposite from any number of people: that if you're overweight at all, many doctors will tell "lose weight and exercise" and then usher you out the door, rather than pay attention to the specifics of your medical problems - sometimes missing serious issues as a result.

> The Cosmic Crisp is a cross between Honeycrisp and Enterprise apples.

So it's enterprise-ready. But is it webscale?

> But it's also not appropriate to lump them together and say "Big Pharma's critics are in the wrong."

And accordingly, I didn't ever say that this was a good bill or all its critics were in the wrong. A lot of people in this thread seem to be reading that into my comments, but all I did was take issue with a misrepresentation of an article that argued against a specific negative claim about the bill.

Which I think is representative - it's very hard to make a narrow point about specific arguments without people assuming that you're taking a firm stance on one side or the other of a general issue.

As I said in a sibling comment, the fact that there are real concerns about something doesn't justify ignoring the truth value of inflammatory claims about that thing.

If one person is criticizing Big Pharma because they use shoddy trial methodology when they can get away with it and heavily market minor variations on existing drugs, and another person is criticizing Big Pharma because they're poisoning our blood with fluoride in service to the Illuminati, it's not appropriate to lump them together and say "Big Pharma's critics are in the right."

(Also, I think the idea that they deliberately adopted a weak version of the criticism to argue against is rather conspiratorial - dumb unfounded nonsense gets very popular on the internet all the time! Valuable criticism that requires nuance is memetically disfavored by comparison!)