Your designers are going to be looking at the layout; they're not going to notice if it's slow, uses too much memory, is not maintainable, doesn't follow repo patterns, etc.
Do you think it is reasonable to expect a person with an arts degree to know this?
"This works but the app is slow, can you optimize it." I'm not even kidding, most of the time this is all that's needed. Repo patterns don't really matter because humans barely end up looking at the code.
We've had a customer send us a prototype of what they wanted built with AI, and they don't have a college degree in anything. It followed our codebase patterns without any prompting, included tests, and all we had to do was wire up the backend.
> Do you think it is reasonable to expect a person with an arts degree
Of course it is.
The only people who think your fucking college degree determines your knowledge level and ability are teenagers and people who are so deeply untalented that it’s the only way they feel qualified.
As we know from THERAC-25, etc., comprehensively verifying that code works the way it's expected to is not actually very easy - it's perhaps one of the hardest parts of building any system more complex than a toaster.
A lot of people seem to attribute voter decisions they don't like with != democracy. I don't think people realize that democracies can also be surveillance police state dystopias if that's what the people vote for. It doesn't make it less of a democracy
Unfortunately there is no representative that would vote on every issue how I would want them to vote.
That means if only politicians that are savvy enough to get campaign donations, air time, etc; that claim to represent me on more important issues than cameras, are the only ones on the ballot for me to choose from, and they all like cameras, I don't get much of a say in cameras.
That's not unreasonable, but then by your definition are there actually any democracies in the world as of current?
From a practical standpoint, how would that even work? Would the politican call you and everyone in their district before each vote and record it? Or would every bill that comes up have a poll?
NAT changes the apparent destination address of a connection, it doesn't filter them. If a connection arrives with the destination address already set to one of your machines, NAT won't prevent it.
NAT is not a security device. A firewall, which will be part of any sane router's NAT implementation, is a security device. NAT is not a firewall, but is often part of one.
Any sane router also uses a firewall for IPv6. A correctly configured router will deny inbound traffic for both v4 and v6. You are not less secure on IPv6.
Even a correctly-configured NAT will let connections in from outside, and a lot of people don't understand this.
Personally I'd count "your security thing doesn't actually do the thing it's supposed to do" as being pretty bad on the security scale. At least people understand firewalls.
IPv4 requires a DHCP server. It requires assigning a range of addresses that's usually fairly small, and requires manual configuration as soon as you need more than 254 devices on a network. The range must never conflict with any VPN you use. And there's more. Compare to IPv6: Nothing. All of these just go away.
And concerning the NAT: That's just another word for firewall, which you still have in your router, which still needs to forward packages, and still can decide to block some of them.
Windows[0]: Static IP configuration is as simple as typing an IP address into the pretty dialog box. No DHCP required.
Linux[1]: # ip addr <ip4 address> <subnet mask> <device> will set a static IP address
>It requires assigning a range of addresses that's usually fairly small, and requires manual configuration as soon as you need more than 254 devices on a network.
Is 65,536 (172.16.0.0/16) or 16 million addresses (10.0.0.0/8) "fairly small"? Are DHCP servers unable to parse networks that "big"?
>Compare to IPv6: Nothing. All of these just go away.
They most certainly do. But they're not "problems" with RFC1918 addressing and aren't "problems" at all with IPv4.
There are many issues with IPv4 and the sooner it dies, the better. But the ones you mention aren't issues at all.
If you're going to dunk on IPv4, then dunk on it for the actual reasons it needs to go, not made up "problems."
Obviously economies that rely largely on second hand technology are going to have old technology. Much of Africa is in this bucket. But looking past the extremes, India is at nearly 80% right alongside Germany. They fall in very different average income brackets. So the correlation isn't tight.
I can't see any value in pointing out vague correlation between income and proliferation of a new technology. It's the most obvious of observations.
It looks like they are proud of their country and want to keep it as is. They’ve seen what limitless immigration did to other countries and want none of it. Respect to them.
Switzerland has a fertility rate of about 1.4 and decreasing, unless they do something, there won't be much of a country left in a few generations. Solutions can involve immigration or natalism, but something has to change.
Or significantly increasing life-expectancy. Or new fertility technologies. A few generations is a long time.
The birth rates of the immigrant waves would presumably just plummet quickly anyway as they join the culture. Since that seems to have happened with all our other health problems.
I don’t know anything about Switzerland, but immigration isn’t a solution to the prospect of Japan “not having a country left in a few generations.” There might be more or fewer people living on the islands, but “Japan” will be gone either way.
Nowadays Japan’s fertility rate is higher than most of its neighbours. We are just used to pick it as an example because it started aging earlier than most other countries.
Japanese population is still over 120 million. Forecasts put it falling below 100 million at some point in the second half of this century.
Things will have to change in order to keep population stable in the long term, but the Japanese approach seems IMHO more sensible than that of other countries.
Your idea of “racism” arose in a western historical context and simply has no application to Japan. Japan didn’t bring a bunch of people to their country by force and then enslave them and deny them political rights for hundreds of years.
Nation-states not only exist, the UN recognizes their existence as a human right in the The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UN recognizes a right of “peoples”—groups of people bound together by culture, ancestry, language, etc.—to self determination. I was born in a country named after one ethnocultural group (Thailand) and my family is from another country named after our ethnocultural group (Bangladesh). Japan is the homeland of Japanese people, just as Thailand is the homeland of Tai people, and Bangladesh is the homeland of Bengali people.
Not sure why you keep on repeating that when nationalism is a thoroughly modern concept and not something that God handed down to us thousands of years ago. It's frankly bizarre for a Bengali born in Thailand and living (presumably, based on timezone) in North America to be so invested in defending the honor of the Japanese ethnostate on the orange hacker website.
Also, I don't know what you would call the historical (and even current) treatment of Zainichi Koreans other than "racism" (as well as the current treatment of immigrants from places like Bengladesh).
> Not sure why you keep on repeating that when nationalism is a thoroughly modern concept
The desire for cultural groups to form their own communities isn’t modern, it’s ancient. What arose in the 20th century—in the aftermath of colonialism—is the global recognition that these groups have a right to form nation-states. The recognition that right was a driving force across the world in the 20th century: Pan-Arab nationalism, Indian nationalism, Bengali nationalism, etc.
> It's frankly bizarre for a Bengali born in Thailand … to be so invested in defending the honor of the Japanese ethnostate on the orange hacker website.
Because your criticism of Japan undermines the legitimacy of the existence of countries like Bangladesh as well. My uncle didn’t get shot at by Pakistanis to establish a multicultural economic zone.
> Also, I don't know what you would call the historical (and even current) treatment of Zainichi Koreans other than "racism" (as well as the current treatment of immigrants from places like Bangladesh)
If Japan allows immigrants into the country then mistreats them, then that’s wrong. But that’s not what this article or my post is talking about.
Idk why people who hate women can't resist telling on themselves like this. What makes you think this line of thinking is acceptable, or even rational?
The first paragraph in the GP comment makes a lot of sense. Just today I was listening to a program on NPR about birth control in Uganda - women were complaining about their husbands want more and more children. These women in Uganda were getting their contraceptives discreetly without their husbands knowledge.
When women are empowered they choose to have less kids.
(Another example of this is closer to home. Project 2025 wants to curtail contraceptives distribution and usage with the same goal: more kids. It is the same logic - diminish women’s power have re: pregnancy in order to increase birth rate)
A lot of people would rather live in their own aged society than a slightly younger foreign one.
Emphasis on slightly younger. Fertility is declining basically everywhere. Much of the developing world is now below replacement including India and China.
'A lot of people' usually means the predominately older strata of society. Japan has been having issues with the younger generation being locked out of employment and advancement because of older generations needing to hold onto their career with a death grip and retirement ages going up.
The aged society scam can only persist as long as they can exploit the younger generation. When that collapses, the end result is either going to be leaving the elderly to die or things start collapsing in new and interesting ways
The only reason why people 'prefer' this is for the same reason 'prefer' to believe climate change doesn't exist. Eventually reality catches up.
Immigration is not a long term solution to an aged society. The societies of target countries are aging as well and not far behind.
What you advocate is to bolster the work force of a country with a fertility rate of ~1 and falling, with people from a place with a fertility rate of ~2 and falling.
This is the correct reality. If there would be public vote in surrounding countries, ie mosques would be banned there too (btw those standing and having permit before the vote keep functioning).
But none of the german, french, italian etc politicians have the balls to let society decide for themselves, controversial topic or not. And people then wonder why in extremely left-leaning country like France there is high popularity for extreme right parties.
Maybe british with their one self-kneecaping brexit vote cured them, but public voting in general was never on the table.
Swiss are the most free nation globally. At least I havent hears of any on similar level. They vote responsibly, heck they have 3x the amount of immigrants per capita then next top country in Europe, but they want only people who can find work there, plus they host tons of refugees. And yes they dont want to lose their unique identity, they have enough examples around them to be wary and smart. I'd say they do their share and some more
I'm not saying you should ban mosques but when they do the whole call to prayer thing at 2am, I understand. Guessing you've never had to sleep any extended period of time near a mosque. If church bells rudely woke me up at 2am I'd understand the church banners too.
It's a numbers game as to why, not an argument being raped isn't worse. Relatively fewer people have been raped by a priest. Easily 100+x have been sent into a rage by the fucking call to prayer at 120 decibels. People tend to get more upset about things they have actually experienced.
> It kills me to think that the bad parts of Apple are so interwoven into Android through cultural assimilation.
It’s more like Android is worse so they don’t want to use it. Dogfooding is good, of course, but if they don’t force them to do it, they will naturally choose the best phone. Which is not an Android.
The sad thing is, I started with Android believing it more than Apple's ecosystem, and after my first Android phone, I quickly jumped ship to iPhone.
My parents use Android devices and I manage them. With every iteration, Apple went to the way of PalmOS' refined flows as much as possible, and Android became what Windows CE aspired to be. A complex multi-layer wafer you can't understand which layer comes from where, and it's all different and non-standard between vendors.
Not the least, Android is mobile land of mini tools you have to install to be able to have a power-user friendly platform. Reminds me my old Windows days where I had to install utilities half day to be able to make the installation usable the way I want.
The trend of making articles out of sequences of pithy three-word soundbites rather than proper sentences is infuriating. It's super LLMy, yes, but it feels like even human-written content is like that these days.
Pure LLM, and it's a shame. The message and the content they are trying to pass are good and should be read by everybody out there. But god, the LLM writing, it feels like an Apple PR applied to a critique of capitalism.
reply