druddha

Given the voting divide based on education, people in the U.S. are getting something else out of college education. I have no issue with shoehorning more liberal education into primary education, but a liberal democracy cannot survive if blue-collar workers have no historical context and vote for authoritarians who are intent on destroying democracy.

Gobbledygook.

> The duty and role of a government is to act in the best interest of their citizens which that government represents.

Truism. The point of contention is around what constitutes "best interest."

> The interests of outsiders are simply not relevant to that

If this is so simple, why did it require an additional 500ish words to qualify it?

Your point seems to boil down to this:

In cases where there is a conflict between the perceived "best interest" of citizens and those of non-citizens, if the citizens haven't specifically directed the government to do otherwise, the government should act in the perceived "best interest" of its own citizens.

But it's reductive and short-sighted to say that humanitarian aid "hurts" one side and "helps" the other. For instance, the marginal impact of a U.S. dollar on a U.S. citizen's productivity is effectively nil. But that same dollar spent in a third-world country would have much higher marginal impact. The productivity of that other citizen allows them to specialize and trade, and then everyone benefits in the long term.

The hyper-nationalism perspective that your country should take whatever it can at the expense of other countries is exactly what led to both of the world wars.

But in this case, the term "slave" isn't being used, right?

If they were going to "leap at the chance" to suspend Trump, then why haven't they already? He's been treading in the grey area of their ToS for years.

Seems like a perfectly cromulent project to me.

I agree that the DDG results, especially for software development related searches, are often worse than searching Google or StackOverflow directly. So here's my workflow:

1. Search DDG. If I find a decent result, I stop here.

2. Append !so to the end of the search. This searches StackOverflow directly. If this works, I stop here.

3. Append !g to the end of the search. This searches Google directly.

This way Google becomes a last resort.

Also worth noting that you can actually navigate DDG search results using vim keybindings without the need for a plugin: something Google dropped support for a few years ago.

JS and Python are not to Ruby what Ruby is to Java, though.

> But should everyone even learn k8s?

Of course not.

Different orgs will approach this problem differently. At my company, someone on our infra/devops team made pretty good abstractions eight years ago, and now we're using those same abstractions on top of K8s. So our devs really don't need to know anything about the substrate. But when I go to conferences and meetups, I talk to folks who basically expose the entirety of K8s to devs and expect them to self-serve.

> I think the argument is contrived because loop holes for murder don't exist for a reason, which is that the electoral connection -> legislative process essentially leaves zero room for there to be such a loophole.

Loopholes do exist for murder: for instance, self defense. The Trayvon Martin case is an example of this. The loophole exists for valid reasons, but it's often taken advantage of to circumvent the spirit of the law.

> In fact, concepts such as the intended meaning of the law mean that even if you hacked some edge case in the written law, you'd still go to jail.

Can you provide evidence that this applies only to murder and not to tax evasion?

> Conversely, tax law operates under a general regime where the expected and encouraged behavior of firms is to do their best to avoid paying taxes.

I'll agree it's expected, but I think you'd have a hard time finding a politician or member of the working class who would say firms are encouraged to avoid paying taxes.

I agree that it's not a perfect analogy, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it entirely.

> Simplifying the tax code, regulations, and laws removes the opportunity for well-funded operations to exploit the existing complexity.

I think most people would agree with this statement, but the devil is in the details. Republicans have been trying to accomplish this type of tax reform for decades, but even with control over both houses and the executive branch, they couldn't overcome the influence of special interests. The question isn't whether a simplified tax code is beneficial -- it's how we get from point A to point B that is contentious.

Can you explain why you think that analogy is contrived?