lerptime

5 ms·

1.
by lerptime 6y ago
I think such actions are done for the purpose of quelling terrorism. I think whether or not those actions will succeed is highly highly questionable. I also agree with you that radicalization is very possible. That is not to say that as atr
2.
by lerptime 6y ago
> Moreover you are trying to justify the suffering of people by using some hypothetical scenario that hasn’t occurred. I don't think he's justifying anything. He's questioning the nature of this world where a clear black a
3.
by lerptime 6y ago
These were very very rare. The US would justify sending a cruise missile into the middle east to kill one target that MAY accidentally harm bystanders but they would never conduct such action on American soil to destroy a terrorist cell tha
4.
by lerptime 6y ago
Is Chinas' reaction also not a response to terrorism? Also by war he likely doesn't mean "official" declaration of war by the vocal cords of the US president. He likely means a more physical form of war by means using so
5.
by lerptime 6y ago
>Wow, the balls on that question. >And please tell me your imagined design to "quell all terrorism" uses a blockchain. If so, do tell-- really, no detail is too small. You got big balls too. The Terrorism he talks about invo
6.
by lerptime 6y ago
I don't know about uncle bob. But certainly what he said is untrue. Programming doesn't even have "while loops" as a primitive. From that wrong statement I assume uncle bob doesn't know much. Of course I could be wr
7.
by lerptime 6y ago
No you're very wrong. >No, one kind of technical debt arises that way. Not the only kind. There's another kind that arises when everything is in such small pieces that nobody can tell how the pieces relate to each other. You ca
8.
by lerptime 6y ago
He's not talking about machine level code. He's talking about while loops in regular programming. I don't think the person was aware that there are paradigms that avoid looping. To be more pedantic and get even lower level th
9.
by lerptime 6y ago
Because you cannot predict the future of your program. Coupled logic that seems correct now may need to be uncoupled in the future. By having every sector of logic be ungrouped it leads to maximum reusability for the future. Technical debt
10.
by lerptime 6y ago
Scientists can't prove anything. They can only make statistical correlations and establish causation to a degree. What this means is that whenever you use the word "prove" with "science" it is colloquial. It is alwa
11.
by lerptime 6y ago
Ah I know. I figured there would be a big roll out of a huge feature someday though.
12.
by lerptime 6y ago
I would explain the content to them. Explain all the different sides and my personal views on it as well as direct him to content with opposing views. Then I would let him form his own opinion. My job as a parent is to help him understand.
13.
by lerptime 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24790837
14.
by lerptime 6y ago
>You've never understood why parents protect children from things that they will eventually be exposed to as adults? If your goal is to give your children unfiltered access to "reality," parents are entirely unnecessary af