dpark

18 ms·

361.
by dpark 5mo ago
You could interpret this kind of statement as a hardline “never trust anything the government says” stance. You could also interpret it as espousing healthy skepticism. You can’t tell which it is from a one line comment, so it’s not at all
362.
by dpark 5mo ago
> Someone can think the bounty industry is going to reward them for actually being exceptional and not look soon enough for other options then pivot to a stance that should give them some quick job offers Sure. And that’s a meaningful
363.
by dpark 5mo ago
That’s a reference to the early Covid 19 investigations/reporting. https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en
364.
by dpark 5mo ago
This is one it those answers that seems on the surface like it contains insight but on closer inspection it’s vacuous. This could be rewritten as “because they aren’t you”, which is true but not a meaningful or educational answer.
365.
by dpark 5mo ago
> it's not a painting to honor the gods Cultural considerations aside, “ritual” also does not mean religious. Someone pointed out that Americans ritually go to ballparks to consume hot dogs and the distinction between ritual and r
366.
by dpark 5mo ago
If there was a good reason to believe the pop tarts you buy might unexpectedly be contaminated with dioxins, waiting a week would be prudent.
367.
by dpark 5mo ago
You might be right. Maybe Russia could actually deliver some more oil if they wished to.
368.
by dpark 5mo ago
The two terms are generally distinguishable. I said they are indistinguishable here . The situation here is not simply an embargo, which is the point. The situation is a blockade which is a superset of an embargo.
369.
by dpark 5mo ago
No. They are temporally distinct . The statement (true or not) is that the US is imposing blockade so that Cuba is forced to cut ties with other nations and depend solely on the US. The blockade state is an embargo. They would no longer be
370.
by dpark 5mo ago
Only because Trump waived sanctions and allowed them to dock. Responding to reporters' questions on March 29 about whether the ship would be allowed to dock, Trump said, "We don't mind somebody getting a boatload...because t
371.
by dpark 5mo ago
Sorry, this is a blockade . The two terms are so indistinguishable here that I mixed them up.
372.
by dpark 5mo ago
I saw where you insisted that instituting a blockade to force buying from the US wouldn’t be an embargo. And then I saw where you reiterated that again because you’re just nitpicking definitions. Me recapping your chain of comments and to b
373.
by dpark 5mo ago
So if Russia puts a Russian flag on a tanker and sails it to Cuba, do you suppose that the USGC will allow it to land? Oh, wait. Those ships are all sanctioned so would be seized. Interesting conundrum.
374.
by dpark 5mo ago
Are you only here to nitpick semantics? The statement clearly is not that allowing Cuba to buy resources from the US would be an embargo. The statement is that the US is embargoing (de facto blockading) Cuba today in order to force them t
375.
by dpark 5mo ago
They have been stationing coast guard ships as interceptors to stop other tankers from reaching Cuba. At least one tanker turned away in the face of the threat from the USCG. The whole “false flags” argument is also a stretch given that the
376.
by dpark 5mo ago
Shockingly they stopped sending oil after the US deposed their leadership and told them they better stop now “or else”.
377.
by dpark 5mo ago
You cannot be serious. Combining a shakedown with an embargo does not mean the embargo doesn’t happen. The US is also not actually sending oil to Cuba so the scenario above is hypothetical, not real.
378.
by dpark 5mo ago
Literally they are blocking tankers from other countries.
379.
by dpark 5mo ago
Blocking tankers from other countries is a blockade. It’s in the name. It’s interesting to see you argue semantics because it implies you agree that the blockade is wrong.
380.
by dpark 5mo ago
> Seems the scientific evidence has just been proving existence of Ra in a round about way. The existence of the sun is pretty well established. The existence of a deity associated with the sun has quite a bit less scientific backing.
381.
by dpark 6mo ago
I think this is all valid. What I think bears highlighting is that often you don’t need a 100% unambiguous specification. Very often “meets the business requirements” if totally sufficient and plenty of other stuff is either implicit or jus
382.
by dpark 6mo ago
> A programming language is an abstraction that mostly fully specifies behaviors that any compliant implementation must adhere to, and that you as a user of the language can therefore rely on. This is true but hand waves over a lot of
383.
by dpark 6mo ago
That’s fair. You can decline to participate in casual conversations and be annoyed. Most people don’t mind someone initiating a casual conversation in a non threatening manner. Most will enjoy it, at least sometimes. I’m happy for the auth
384.
by dpark 6mo ago
It’s basically “If you want to be liked, you should try to be likable.” Is the only way to not be manipulative to be a curmudgeonly jerk? If being pleasant means being manipulative, then indeed everyone should try to be a bit more manipulat
385.
by dpark 6mo ago
I think the most charitable interpretation would be that people expressing that view are deeply self-conscious. They are afraid if they followed the advice in the book, they might be perceived as manipulative and they want to avoid that pos
386.
by dpark 6mo ago
> Influence doesn’t have to be manipulative > influence is a euphemism for manipulation Surely you can see that your statements contradict each other. > Influence for influence sake is selfishly motivated. Hard disagree. It c
387.
by dpark 6mo ago
> A programming language let's you avoid undefined behavior and stick to the defined abstraction provided by the language. Yes and no. It lets you avoid undefined behavior traps. It lets you rely on endless implementation define
388.
by dpark 6mo ago
No, we can’t retreat to the “LLMs so dumb” position every time we discuss anything around them. This is not a rebuttal. It is an interesting thing to discuss on its own merit, but it’s not relevant here. If a natural language specification
389.
by dpark 6mo ago
> “influence” is a euphemism for “manipulate.” This is exactly what he’s talking about. The premise of the book is essentially, “what if you were a generally nice person who deserved friends”. The whole “you could only possibly preten
390.
by dpark 6mo ago
What deterministic option are you referring to here? Humans certainly are not deterministic in how they interpret instructions and write code. If I asked you to implement a feature and a month later asked you to implement the exact same fea

More ›