On the contrary, I think folks that always try to find some sort of hypocrisy in how folks choose to not spend their money are broken.
It seems too cynical by half, and completely discards any sort of relative morality to one's purchasing decisions. I have also long suspected that there is a selfish motivation to it - as if to assuage your (again, the royal your) own morality about how you choose to spend your own money, you need to tear down other people's choices.
My chief complaint is not only that it's spitting into a headwind during a rainstorm, but also just the performative nature of it. Someone enjoys Adams' (Adams's?) work, presumably for years or even decades. He says something gross. That person then, in order to deprive this multi-millionaire of a few dollars, not only deprives themselves of something they ostensibly enjoy[ed], but also has to turn it into a moral or ethical question so they can either feel better about it themselves, or feel superior to people who a) don't really care what Adams said or did, or b) care but are capable of separating the art from the artist.
It's the same kind of performative virtue signaling that led someone at the New York Times to call him racist twice in the first two sentences of his own obituary.
> also has to turn it into a moral or ethical question so they can either feel better about it themselves,
You phrased this as an either-or thing, so I am actually genuinely curious....what exactly is wrong with this attitude?
We as people do a lot of things in our lives that probably don't make a difference, but that makes us feel better as individuals. Genuinely, what's the harm in cutting something out of your life because it makes you feel better?
In fact, some of every dollar you spend _must_ go to people you would find reprehensible if only you knew them better. Bought a Slurpee at 7-11? There's almost certainly someone in that corporation who will share ever-so-slightly in the revenue your $0.98 of sugar water brought in.
Adding onto this, we all pay some forms of taxes one way or other and those taxes are sometimes used by govts to then either be lost in corruption or scandals or the govt itself spends it on something you might not appreciate if you know the full context of details (especially when they pertain to war)
> Ignore is not only bliss, but necessary.
It honestly depends on the time, if we as a society wants change, some amount of uncomfort is needed to better shape it for the needs/affordability of the average person but also a lot of people don't want to face that uncomfort so they wish to be ignorant partially being the reason that some of the issues are able to persist even in a democratic system
I'm shocked at how much the term "racism" is coming up. I followed him on Twitter and watched some of his YouTube and I didn't see any racist content. In fact, he did not align with the racist rhetoric and slogans which came out around COVID, that's why he was slandered as racist (ironically). He was just defending his own race. Everyone is entitled to defend their own race and culture if done respectfully and without fanaticism; which was the case here.
> There are a few artists whose output I can't even enjoy any more because their vitriol became so out of control that I couldn't see their work without thinking of their awfulness, though.
Thank you for at least acknowledging this. It's valid to appreciate someone's art while disagreeing with their behavior, but it's also valid if someone's behavior sours you on their art and makes it difficult to appreciate what they've accomplished - especially if you start to recognize some of their inner ugliness in their artistic endeavors.
Personally, I found that I connected with his early work a lot more than his latter work, as I found Dlibert's "nerd slice of life" arc a lot more compelling than his "Office microaggression of the week" arc. Scott revealing his inner ugliness did not make me eager to return, but I still keep a well-worn Dlibert mouse pad on my desk that my Dad gave me as a teenager; the one that says "Technology: No place for whimps."
Wherever Scott is now, I hope he's found peace.
EDIT: A few strips that live rent-free in my head.
- https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-quest-for-randomness
- https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/hzws/dilbert_condescending_unix_user/
- https://www.facebook.com/groups/423326463636282/posts/581619887806938/ (The Optimist vs The Pessimist)
And what is stopping the donor class from simply jumping ship, or at least moving portions of their assets into forms that are shielded from what is going on?
It's not the only anomaly. There was a previous period of long peace between 1815 and 1914, between the Napoleonic Wars and WW1.
This balance of power was carefully set up in the Congress of Vienna following the (first) defeat of Napoleon, and was ended by the ambitions of a Kaiser who desired the prestige of globe-spanning empire yet couldn't diplomacy his way out of a wet paper bag to realize that empire without bumbling into war.
> but you have to understand the rationale behind C++: a language suitable for large scale systems programming with ZERO OVERHEAD.
Is this the reason why C++ was created, or the last remaining niche that C++ is holding onto?
I remember the early 90's, and it very much seemed like C++ was being pushed as both a general-purpose language and the logical successor to C, insert Linus Torvalds rant here. On top of that, C++ made the decision to privilege a form of polymorphism that had pointer-chasing baked into its internal design, as well as having a good chunk of the standard library being considered a footgun best to avoid due to how much it blew up compile-times.
I think that C++ is a zero-overhead language now because a series of general purpose languages that came afterwards took the other niches away from it, plus the benefit of 30+ years worth of compiler optimizations that were originally largely aimed at the mountain of C code that was out there.
EDIT: Almost forgot about exceptions, the other enormous performance footgun that was an early pre-standard C++ feature.
It's far too late to put the genie back in the bottle, but I am morbidly curious as to why the standards committee didn't choose an approach that made moves destructive.
It solves some rare edge cases where the destruction of the moved-from object must be deferred -- the memory is still live even if the object is semantically dead. Non-destructive moves separate those concerns.
There is a related concept of "relocatable" objects in C++ where the move is semantically destructive but the destructor is never called for the moved-from object.
C++ tries to accommodate a lot of rare cases that you really only see in low-level systems code. There are many features in C++ that seem fairly useless to most people (e.g. std::launder) but are indispensable when you come across the specific problem they were intended to solve.
As someone who has actually had to launder pointers before, I would characterize gremlins like std::launder as escape hatches to dig your way out of dilemmas specific to C++ that the language was responsible for burying you under in the first place.
> When dealing with class hierarchies, destructive move semantics becomes problematic. If you move the base first, then the source has a constructed derived part and a destructed base part. If you move the derived part first then the target has a constructed derived part and a not-yet-constructed base part. Neither option seems viable. Several solutions to this dilemma have been explored.
Add this to my "C++ chose the wrong kind of polymorphism to make first-class" tally.
> Add this to my "C++ chose the wrong kind of polymorphism to make first-class" tally.
Is it really the "wrong kind of polymorphism" if it isn't causing any problem and it didn't prevented rolling out features such as semantic support for move constructors?
What would you want to happen when an object that's on the stack is moved? Do you want its destructor to run, or not? If not, how exactly do you want that to no longer occur? And what do you want to happen if the stack object is moved in multiple places? How willing are you to pay a performance or UB penalty for these?
This might not be a popular opinion, but in my experience stock GNOME is quite the polished experience.
In the grand pantheon of my experience using operating systems, Snow Leopard-era macOS is probably my favorite, mostly due to how smoothly everything worked and the degree to which it got out of my way once I learned the ropes, but GNOME circa Fedora 30 was a close second.
I say stock because I also remember trying out Ubuntu-flavored GNOME at around the same time and the comparison was stark. It felt like Cannonical went out of their way to tweak the environment in ways that sound good on paper, but just added papercuts and made the overall experience less stable.
I also remember trying Manjaro at around the same time. On first boot, the welcome popup that was designed to come out of the taskbar instead popped out of the top left corner of the screen.
I have seen very little evidence that bad-faith flagging is actually punished at any appreciable scale on this site.
Either the flagging tools are too easy to get hold of for new users, or the culture of flagging on this site is positively rotten due to the lack of enforcement or a too-specific definition of what "bad faith" is.
I think many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what and why people flag on this site. And as someone who also used to have this misunderstanding, I'll explain how I changed my mind on this topic.
A lot of people view flagging as "that is a troll post/comment" or "that was made in bad faith". But I think another reason many people flag is "this topic is highly unlikely to generate any useful discussion" or "this topic may be fine for discussion, but not on HN".
FWIW, I disagree with the flagging in this instance. Most importantly, I did learn something useful in the comments (the bit about how Apple previously almost banned Tumbler due to unintentional CSAM). But I also don't really begrudge folks who voted to flag. Political topics always have a lower bar for flagging IMO, because they nearly always devolve into useless tribal warfare - useless tribal warfare that you can easily get in spades on nearly any other forum/social media site online. And just look at the comments on this post. Most of them I'd characterize as generally uninsightful, and even disregarding my opinion, tons of the comments here are downvoted. So if some folks are a little too trigger happy to flag because they're at least trying to keep HN's uniquely high value discussions, I don't really blame them.
So while I disagree with the flagging in this instance, I also disagree that HN generally has a problem with bad-faith flagging.
> A lot of people view flagging as "that is a troll post/comment" or "that was made in bad faith". But I think another reason many people flag is "this topic is highly unlikely to generate any useful discussion" or "this topic may be fine for discussion, but not on HN".
I have seen this explanation several times, and it seems like an unfalsifiable conjecture that assumes a lot more good faith than one can expect out of a somewhat-mainstream tech-focused social media site which does not vet the users that sign up for it.
Then again, in fairness, my view is also conjecture. However, I've also noticed in controversial threads it's not uncommon to see reasonably-stated posts getting flagged/dead, and one would expect to see a lot less of this behavior if users were actually at reasonable risk of getting their flagging privileges revoked. So I at the very least feel like there's some basis to my conjecture.
Of course, the ultimate problem is that the flagging behavior seems largely absent of accountability. We don't know who flagged the post, and we also have no insight into how often the moderators of this site yank away moderation tools from their users.
> this topic is highly unlikely to generate any useful discussion
Some things need saying.
It doesn't always have to be a spirited, constructive rich debate in the comments. Some times it's just okay for one of us to tell it like it is.
I agree there are plenty of things that don't need repeating, don't need redundant commentary, and a billion etceteras, but the US is dangerously broken and the tech industry need to do their part to steer her away from endless fascism. This needs to be said, heard, and acted upon.
On the contrary, I think folks that always try to find some sort of hypocrisy in how folks choose to not spend their money are broken.
It seems too cynical by half, and completely discards any sort of relative morality to one's purchasing decisions. I have also long suspected that there is a selfish motivation to it - as if to assuage your (again, the royal your) own morality about how you choose to spend your own money, you need to tear down other people's choices.
reply