stoperaticless

Could two particles be: anti proton and anti electron?

(What conservation law would it violate?)

I think you want me to address the policy, that you linked to.

Well, the wiki’s policy is irrelevant. Or only 50% relevant.

I see that the policy tries to provide some “spirit of the law” and/or hints to avoid edit wars and such, but evidently many follow the policy only in letter and just know what not to mention, i.e. to not trigger the policy. (instead of rejecting edits with “I own this” or “I know this better”, edits get rejected with “citation needed”)

> As I said, the distinction matters.

I see you sincerely believe that it does, but I’m of different opinion.

People in any group form a hierarchy, and have (frequently unwritten) “traditions”. And those are features, not bugs.

Hierarchy is not necessarily strict or formal, but it helps with coordination.

“Tradition” is the actual way how things are done. “Tradition” can be changed by policies, it may even implement the policy to the letter, but it always encompasses more than the policy contains. Because it’s almost impossible and most undesirable to have policies for each breath we take.

> Feel free to address concretely what I wrote in my previous comment.

Somebody has older account then me here and is feeling authoritative I see. Thanks for good practical illustration.

Wiki, open source projects, stackoverflow and democratic country, all are different, but they definitely have similarities.

Established old-timers have significantly more authority than newbies in any organisation.

Trust built over time matters.

Maintainer stance is understandable. They are the ones taking on the risks and who will be left dealing with consequences.

Flyby contributors don’t know how much effort there is to keep things going even at good enough level. It’s up to the newcomer to convince that the new opinion matters and new risk is worth taking.

Maintainers can’t distinguish between troll and flyby-contributor-never-to-be-seen-again and genius-that-will-sacrifice-everything-for-the project.

I get that you can’t convince of anything if they don’t discuss, but that means one must earn the right to discuss, by becoming part of current organisation.

Illustrative analogy from open source project (not mine).

Project had top level directories like “ext” and “external” and “vendor” (which is confusing at the first glance). Potential contributor made PR to rectify it (memory slips on how; but seemed reasonable at first glance). Owner/Maintainer rejected this help. The would be contributor got frustrated, later complained here that the project did not care about code quality and best practices and is hostile to new contributors. I see Chesterton’s fence here and a bit of entitlement on the would-be-contributor’s side.

> Sort of like if you have an infinite number of coin flips then at some place and time you'll land on heads a million times in a row, no matter how unlikely.

If random event result is any real (i.e. not limited integers and fractions) number from interval 0-1, then no number will appear twice even after infinite number of throws.

Open question surely follows: Time and space, are they integer or real?

I want to highlight, that extra bad part is keeping the name “json parser”.

(Naming it my-custom-format parser would circumvent ambiguity)

That possible when you control the creation process. Frequently you can’t control the creation (e.g.external system)

Also, “well being of people” < “military stuff”

Strong/weak types and static/dynamic typing are orthogonal things.

Strong type system limits things like 1+”1”.

Static type system requires type declarations (“int i”).

Python always had strong dynamic types.

There is no way to unambiguosly decide who is responsible for which earnings.

Hipothetical two people cooperative that produces simple hammers. One specializes on wooden part, the other on metal part. How much each of them earned to the company? (Or producing and selling; or one spending his lifesavings to buy pricey hammer-making-equipment while other presses buttons on said equipment)

I’d add that the answer was clearly over the top, thus sarcastic, thus he is agreement with his soldiers.

I’m also intrigued and waiting for op to elaborate.

Constant that I see: There is power hierarchy(ies) at all times, even if individuals change (necessary for any kind of coordination).

Some related things:

- to get more power one has to actively pursue it.

- power must be used to preserve the power.

- ones power depends on the power of those below. In a sense, it is a global ponzi scheme.

Disclaimer time: don’t take it too literally. Power comes in many forms (e.g. force, money, formal control of some organization). Hierarchy is not necessarily strict, total or formal, a general, sponsor of the king or his blackmailer, all are near the top - they can do decisions that lonely rural pieful fisherman can not. Exceptions can exist, there probably was occurance when loneley rural fisherman was given an army to command, without any initiative by said fisherman.

These generalities do not mean that nothing changes, there are uncountable many variables. Just, no equality or fairness. There will be challangers, there will be winners and those who lost.

Could you expand on why is it easily prosecutable?

I sense that it has something to do with lying in documents.

But hypothetically: if I write “no”. Proof of lying requires proof of terrorism. (At which point you did all the job of proving terorism, despite the document)

> Like if someone is accused of murder,

This analogy has issues.

Topic is war. As far as international law is concerned, it’s “ok” to shoot people, blow them up and maim them.

I would propose analogy from a contact sport like mma (or the movie “purge”).

Bad things, that usually are forbidden, are allowed and even expected to be done in the event. Rules just add some restriction on how and why.