svrb

13 ms·

61.
by svrb 6y ago
Can you explain why you believe "remove the misleading sentence" is not constructive?
62.
by svrb 6y ago
So you're open to any suggestion except one which changes what you wrote? If the documentation claims that unsafe rust introduces new types, then it is wrong. It is demonstrably false. You can literally fire up a text editor and dispro
63.
by svrb 6y ago
Just delete that fragment "and new types ...". No part of it is true. Unsafe blocks do not introduce any new types anyways. You can do anything at all with a pointer, except dereference it, outside of an unsafe block. There's
64.
by svrb 6y ago
> and a subtle topic that's easy to misunderstand You're right, yet there's a higher level of responsibility for people who are claiming to be able to teach others about these things (which grandparent comment does) to und
65.
by svrb 6y ago
Frankly the new version is still wrong. There's no such thing in rust as a "type not subject to the borrowing rules". Raw pointers don't respect borrowing, but they themselves are still subject to all the same borrowing
66.
by svrb 6y ago
The dataset linked from this thread on Twitter may serve your needs too?: https://twitter.com/vinayprabhu/status/1307497736191635458?s...
67.
by svrb 6y ago
> People want it to be true. This is the really disturbing thing. Why would someone want Twitter to have race-based image cropping? And yet the behavior of many in the various threads is precisely as if they did! I think it may actuall
68.
by svrb 6y ago
It's also how HN works. In a comment far below there's a link to a decent controlled experiment completely debunking this claim (outcome using controlled dataset: 40 white to 52 black faces chosen). But that comment is heavily dow
69.
by svrb 6y ago
According to the abstract, > The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Therefore it's unlikely that this paper will be peer-re
70.
by svrb 6y ago
Okay, so you agree that 1 is an odd number. Is it such a leap that 2 is also an odd number? Your two statements are entirely independent.
71.
by svrb 6y ago
> enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers > Individuals are already prohibited from doing those things via criminal law. If > Yes, criminal labor laws adopted as part of broader regulation of labor practices. You&
72.
by svrb 6y ago
> Were ... If so, I feel like the conversation might shift. This is a bizarre way of looking at the world. The question is about the state of the world decades ago (were the laws written to further racist goals?). Yet you posit that the
73.
by svrb 6y ago
> no middle name Sorry, this form requires a middle name.
74.
by svrb 6y ago
Time to add a Falsehood[] Programmers Believe About Names: that it's even remotely possible to "match" them. That's just not how names work, frankly.
75.
by svrb 6y ago
> The existence of a continuum ... can be used as an apparent counter-argument to literally anything, and is meaningless. I don't believe the contradiction has been addressed at all. > I'm lost. Ah yes, a brilliant response
76.
by svrb 6y ago
> As soon as you provide the requisite amount of acceptance to the outgroup, they are no longer the outgroup, so you are no longer being open minded. This may seem true if one can't conceive of being accepting of an outgroup. But if
77.
by svrb 6y ago
(Continuing from bottom of original thread.) If you are finally willing to accept an explanation of what I originally meant, instead of once again claiming that my immediate and complete repudiation of things I never said is just further ev
78.
by svrb 6y ago
> given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking questions in order to learn a trait of someone on the right, and no
79.
by svrb 6y ago
> So.. you actually do. > like yourself, seems to see the left as some kind of SJW hivemind. I'm unable to have a meaningful discussion here as long as you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not sure why you decided it was n
80.
by svrb 6y ago
How does that demonstrate open-mindedness by the left? The left is (ostensibly) universally supportive of LGBT rights. Liking the in-group is not a demonstration of open-mindedness. (Unless, of course, you're saying there's someth
81.
by svrb 6y ago
I don't, but I believe "cancel culture" is entirely defined by the left, so again I find the notion of the left being "open-minded" entirely contrary to all lived experience. Can you point to a single piece of evide
82.
by svrb 6y ago
> open-mindedness of the left Did you even read the article? How is cancel culture "open-minded"? I'm legitimately confused and shook at how you could come to that conclusion... It would be really helpful if you could expl
83.
by svrb 6y ago
I think even this gives too little credit in a way. Why were the walls whitewashed? To grow less mold and generally stay cleaner. That's the only why for doing the action, and it seems to have been perfectly well understood. The only
84.
by svrb 6y ago
I believe you misunderstood my comment (perhaps I worded it poorly): I intended that it be interpreted as a statement purely within the meta-discussion. I shared a concern about the arguments used to justify both sides of the debate, an
85.
by svrb 6y ago
Unfortunately you don't seem to stand corrected, as you're still declaring the same assumptions you had in the first place!
86.
by svrb 6y ago
A threat to retaliate is a form of retaliation.
87.
by svrb 6y ago
Though it may not seem like it at first, the problem is ideological. Somewhere along the line CA's left/progressive ideology picked up a deeply ironic tenet that the world must remain absolutely unchanged by human habitation; that
88.
by svrb 6y ago
The record already reflects (now) that Apple retaliated against Epic in blocking Unreal Engine. (Granted, the court did not use the word "retaliate" because it was a TRO, not a ruling on the facts; but the implication is clear.) B
89.
by svrb 6y ago
> they do burn Yikes, I had caught the shattering risk and decided I'd pass on something built literally like the article said. But if these can burn ... that takes it to "that externality needs to be fully mitigated before th
90.
by svrb 6y ago
> It's just that in many cases the value-add for customers doesn't justify the price difference. Hold on, why does your opinion about the value-add get to determine whether I should be allowed to pay for that convenience?

More ›