Not to mention him saying no one writes java anymore when it literally powers world's most popular OS (android) and double digit percentage of internet backends
core (as in kernel) is running linux kernel which is C, yes.
But java is not 'just UI' - majority of user space apps run java (or jvm, to be precise), as well as tons of system services, to the point where you can't actually do a lot of android API calls from native code, because a lot of logic is written in java(or kotlin) code, and not just java being wrapper around native code.
In a heartbeat. If two criminal organizations want to fight over some land, that’s none of my business. Also worth noting that in a war, the greatest danger comes from your own government, not the enemy because the enemy will accept your surrender and your own government won’t.
You've grown spoilt on an age of peace. But that kind of abject self-interest is probably the first to leave one in front of the chopping block, or worse, enslavement.
That’s exactly what the Ukrainian government is doing with their men, so you’re right in an ironic way. If I was Ukrainian I would be praying for my government to collapse.
In that case I'd fight of course, but luckily most wars are for land and resources (which don't belong to the people anyways), so it literally doesn't matter who wins, you'll be paying taxes regardless.
Take the chance to freshen up on eastern European history and the absolute dark footprint that russia has cast on it during the centuries. There is a reason why eastern europeans would rather die than be under russian occupation.
It's not just about borders, it's about oppression, torture, destruction, and then borders again in a few years. To STILL not see what the russian world is about is truly an exercise in idiocy. Sorry, I had to answer a genuine question with a genuine statement
> why eastern europeans would rather die than be under russian occupation.
From what I gathered, people above a certain age say that their country was better under Soviet Union. Additionally, people say (probably rightly so) that Orbán is pro-Putin. Why is it the case?
> From what I gathered, people above a certain age say that their country was better under Soviet Union.
Rather a minority of people above a certain age. Like, these days you can go to the shop and buy a banana. Other things, too. I still remember the queues, at the end of which... there was nothing.
>From what I gathered, people above a certain age say that their country was better under Soviet Union
Assuming this is true, it's because these are soviet leftovers who had a low education, were indoctrinated from a young age, and lived during the dream phase where you were told what to do, where to live, etc. Then came the bill when everything collapsed because this didn't work.
I can make everybody happy tomorrow by emptying the state coffers and institutionalizing national NEETDOM, can't promise our happiness will last long but we can try!
And regardless of what they think, it was shit.
Edit: about "why is Orban pro-putin?", this is a joke right?
No, I'd rather not spend my time on what seems to be a promising exercise in moving the goalpost. Not sure I'd classify hungary as eastern European (I was mostly referring to slavs) but sure you can find at least a pro russian guy among eastern europeans, especially dictator ones.
Well, from what I gathered, people think the Earth is flat. And I think the way I gathered that data is considerably less creative than the way you did if you managed to come up with that inane conclusion.
In fact, you're so wrong that we're no longer in the realm of having opinions. You're objectively wrong. Look up comparisons of the economic growth of nations to the west of the Berlin Wall and to its east. Germany's alone would suffice, but have at it.
And then you think bringing up outliers means anything... If chess is so difficult why is Magnus Carlsen so good at it? Therefore, chess is an easy game, gotcha. yawn
In the end, it’s the people who fight that determine if the thing they are fighting for is worth their lives.
Dying for some lines on the map sounds bad, but if it were only lines on the map, then the people probably wouldn't choose to die for them, would they?
Nobody wants to die, but if someone is ready to give up their life for some cause, then who are you to tell them they can't?
It's the fate of Ukrainians that is at stake and its the Ukrainians that determine if changing that fate is worth the costs of their lives.
I am not going to tell them they can't, they can do as they see fit, of course.
It is a very subjective topic, however. I might save my family even if it meant the death of hundreds of people, or not, it is a moral dilemma for sure. I do not have an answer.
Some people may believe "less people dying" is always favorable.
Seems like most people who have replied to my comments want justice over saving millions of people's life. Fine by me, but the assumed and voiced moral superiority is baffling.
To have done "the same", he would have needed to force Russian citizens living in occupied Kursk to pick up guns and throw their lives away fighting other Russians. Which he didn't.
Russia did force people from occupied territories to fight in Ukraine.
You are taking a side though. Your position that absence of violence is more important than justice means that you expect Zelensky to just roll over and give Russia what it wants, which basically means a complete annexation of Ukraine.
You accused others with having a voice of moral superiority, but your "I did not pick a side" is just that.
There are only two possible outcomes to this war. Either Ukraine still exists as a sovereign nation, or it doesn't. The first will require continued fighting. There is no possibility for Ukraine to remain sovereign without violently kicking Russia out of its land.
What you described is black and white thinking, however, and there is much more to it than just "either Russia wins or does not win", pretty sure there can be a compromise, you know, a middle path, that is good enough for both parties and consequently there will be less deaths.
If people want to die for justice, so be it. Up to them, but:
Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Because Russia is the invader. It lied about the troop movements being a prelude to invasion. It lied about the reasons for invading. It has committed, and continues to commit, war crimes. It has made nuclear threats to dissuade others from helping Ukraine defend itself. It has threatened Finland for daring to join NATO.
> pretty sure there can be a compromise
Why do you think this?
Russia can stop their unlawful invasion of a sovereign country any time they want. That they have not done so ought to be a QED that they don't want to stop.
> Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Would you talk about the invasion of your own country in the same vein?
I don't know where you live. USA? Imagine Russia had in 2014 annexed Alaska the way they've annexed Crimea, and in 2022 started trying the same on the states of Washington and Montana, and briefly had control of the I-90 as far as Chicago before being repelled.
If that happened, would you say "pretty sure there can be a compromise"?
The "compromise" Zelenskyy is offering Putin is: "get out of my country that you've illegally occupied, and I won't keep shooting drones into your oil refineries".
The "compromise" Putin is offering Zelenskyy is: "Be our puppet or die".
Nothing about Russian state behaviour looks like they're willing to behave. Not the military action, not the broad-daylight assassinations (not only in Ukraine, but also in Germany and the UK and Turkey), certainly not the war crimes.
Right now, the Russian government is acting, and talking, as if Ukraine isn't even a real country.
Would you have protected Iraq against its invasion by the West, knowing it was based on lies and led to massive destruction, loss of life, and destabilization? What about Lebanon right now, with Israel's ongoing actions - shouldn't we ask the same question about justice and sovereignty there, too? And here's another tough one: would you speak about suicide bombers the same way? They often claim they're acting for justice - perhaps not your justice, but justice nonetheless. Does that justify their actions, or do we make distinctions between subjective and objective justice? Just because someone believes their actions are justified doesn't mean they're morally acceptable.
In summary, the question of whether boundaries or human lives matter more is a complex one. The dilemma is whether compromising sovereignty for the sake of peace or minimizing deaths is truly just, or if it's more just to stand firm for a nation's right to self-determination - even at the cost of more suffering. The comparison to Iraq, Lebanon, and suicide bombers underscores how subjective "justice" can be. What one side believes to be justice doesn't always align with what is objectively right according to international law or human rights principles (more about it later).
The core issue here is how we define justice in conflict situations: is it about preserving borders and sovereignty, or about protecting human lives? It's a deeper, more nuanced question that forces us to reflect on the values we prioritize in these difficult circumstances.
Ask the people who tried to scale the Berlin wall before the collapse of the Iron
Curtain. Oh, you can't, because they're dead. Shot. Because they were on the wrong side of the boundary.
> getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country.
Is it not just speculation? Does it have any merits? Would he do it? What makes you think that it is going to happen, that he wants to do it? Could he actually attempt to do it?
> Is it not just speculation? Does it have any merits? Would he do it? What makes you think that it is going to happen, that he wants to do it? Could he actually attempt to do it?
I am referring to NATO, UN, ICC, Amnesty International & Human Rights Organizations, global backslash, fear of uncontrollable consequences (wrt. current allies like China and India, as they are Russia's key trade partners).
So there are those deterrents: legal charges, sanctions, political pressure, military retaliation, geopolitical fallout, and internal resistance within Russia itself.
Even Russian oligarchs and elites might resist, fearing total international isolation.
There are many reasons to not be afraid of what we might believe Putin would do ("getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country" and so forth).
NATO only applies if they go specifically for a NATO country — which is why Ukraine wants into NATO in the first place, and why the invasion of Ukraine got Finland to join in a hurry. Also this is only a risk while NATO continues to still exist, which is threatened both because Trump has explicitly said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447
> Amnesty International & Human Rights Organizations, global backslash, fear of uncontrollable consequences (wrt. current allies like China and India, they are Russia's key trade partners).
None of this stopped them so far, why would it start?
Especially on trade: Russia is a petrostate, their main export is fuel, the invasion of Ukraine by itself sped up the European transition away from fossil fuels in general and their fossil fuels in particular, and everyone Russia does business with — including "allies", though that's too strong a word for their relationship with India — has every reason to take advantage of the price ceiling to get discounts even when they don't explicitly take part in the actual ceiling itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_crude_oil_price_c...
> There are many reasons to not be afraid of what we might believe Putin would do ("getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country" and so forth).
Why are you ignoring the evidence that this has already happened three times?
Why do you insist on treating this as a hypothetical?
Game theory would like to have a word. If I'm Putin and I know you will not defend your country if threatened, what's to stop me from annexing it? And then the whole world? After all, we don't want people to die in wars. It's much better for them to die in concentration camps.
There are a LOT of things preventing Putin from doing what he SUPPOSEDLY wants, but regardless, you are not Putin, you do not know what he wants or would do. Putin cannot simply just invade countries at whim, assuming he wants to do that.
But does it actually avoid deaths though? One of them will have to stop, if neither does, there will be more bloodshed, that is a given, right? If Putin does not stop, shouldn't Zelensky do?
So do you think the world should have let Hitler take it over in WWII? Not just Europe, but an empire stretching continents?
People are willing to fight for freedom, even if they might die in the process.
By your logic, you're saying everyone should just surrender to violent bullies. Most people don't think that kind of subjugation is a life worth living -- not if they can help it.
OK, so imagine Hitler didn't have death camps, but otherwise was the same. Invading all of Europe, for democracies to fall to fascism. And then he'd start invading the rest of the world.
You think that would have been preferred then? You would prefer that today we would live under a fascist Third Reich, instead of democracies, so that we could have saved the lives of those who fought in WWII?
I mean, you're free to prefer that. But everyone who fought did it because they thought it was worth it to die, to save democracy so they and their children and their children's children wouldn't have to live under fascist rulers from another nation.
Maybe you don't think Ukranians should fight. But Ukranians clearly believe it's worth it. And people in the country honor those who die for it. And I do too.
Have you spoken to any Moscovites about living standards recently? Like this is so stupid. I would not trade for Russia's brutal treatment of dissidents but we don't exactly have a great record on that front in Western countries…
You know that Hitler was literally voted into power, right?
I am NOT saying Trump is literally Hitler, but the idea that democratic vote can't have un-democratic outcome in the long run is simply false.
It can, and history showed us that more then once
>What do you call being the majority party, winning referendums, etc?
Nazi's were not the majority party when Hitler ran for president, they were the largest party, but not majority. They weren't even a majority even when Hitler was appointed (not voted) chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg, the man who won the presidential election. There were a few more steps before he acquired absolute power, but none of them involved voting. It's interesting, read the article.
Well the largest party (as per HN rules please "use the best form of the argument", no need to nitpick), and not by a small margin -- at least 10% over the 2nd largest. And you'll still argue he did not "win" elections?
(You could not "vote" a chancellor. In a lot of perfectly valid democracies, the PM position is always appointed, never directly voted, usually from the larger party or the at least the candidate most likely to pass a (constructive) motion of no confidence. So he was elected legally per the correct democratic process. Cleanly/Fairly -- that's another question. But would you really be surprised Hitler could win elections? He had pretty ridiculously good reputation in some circles. He would have likely polled pretty well even in the US.).
>And you'll still argue he did not "win" elections?
The Nazi party won elections, Hitler did not.
>>You know that Hitler was literally voted into power, right?
He was not. He lost the presidential election in 1932. He forcefully took the presidency after the Reichstag fire. He was appointed chancellor because the Nazi party won elections. He lost his. I can see where you think it is splitting hairs, but you specifically named Hitler and not the Nazi party. That might not have been what you meant to say, but it's what you said that I was refuting.
Also, Hindenburg didn't have to appoint Hitler, he could have chosen another from the Nazi party. He certainly didn't want to appoint Hitler, but some backroom negotiations that he wasn't a part of ultimately led to Hitler's appointment.
>So he was elected legally per the correct democratic process.
This is like saying the SCOTUS is elected because the President that appointed them was elected. They are not, they are appointed. Hitler himself never won an election.
FWIW, here are the 1932 election results:
Hindeberg 53.05%
Hitler 36.77%
Other Guy 10.16%
This would be considered an absolute blowout. Please don't feel like I'm scolding you, I really enjoy historical conversations, so thanks for this one.
People really don’t understand interwar period Germany, and helpfully pluck out a narrative that suits their interests today. Treaty of Versailles and “dolchstoss” myth included.
Thank you for sharing the truth. It’s worth understanding why Hindenburg chose Hitler as Chancellor, too. Hitler was popular, and seen as a useful force that might be controlled by the conservative elements of the German political system. It didn’t work out that way.
There’s no contemporary analogue to Hitler today in American politics. There’s no significant paramilitary force, for one. No true populist — in spite of trump’s rhetoric his policies don’t qualify.
Ironically, the closest to fitting the mold might be Vance? Somebody unelected, young, brokered his own access to power in exchange for political support (via Elon, Thiel).
> Ironically, the closest to fitting the mold might be Vance? Somebody unelected, young, brokered his own access to power in exchange for political support (via Elon, Thiel).
Kamala Harris fits just as well: She was so unpopular in 2020 she dropped out before the primaries, then got picked for Vice-President. Then because Biden was in office, she again didn't get votes in the primary this year but instead was selected by the DNC when Biden dropped out.
> I can see where you think it is splitting hairs, but you specifically named Hitler and not the Nazi party.
Yes, I do consider this is splitting hairs. First, yeah, I do not think explicitly making the separation between Hitler and the Nazi party makes any practical difference to the argument. Let me know if you can think of one.
Second, Hitler did get into power through democratic means -- definitely not the presidency, but he was made chancellor, which is, to the best of my knowledge, equivalent to a PM and therefore head of the executive. Don't move the goalpost and claim that "Hitler didn't get into power until he illegally made himself president", because he was into power before that; as much as you could within the limits of the constitution. They voted him into office and he was made chancellor through legal means. For the last 2/3 elections that can still be considered "somewhat" free, his party got the largest number of votes.
He won the elections, and legally speaking had every right to be put into power and made chancellor. Or at least to try until he was voted out by a no confidence or failing to pass laws. He had no right to become president, much less to become dictator.
> This is like saying the SCOTUS is elected because the President that appointed them was elected. They are not, they are appointed. Hitler himself never won an election.
In a lot of democratic countries, the PM-equivalent figure is NEVER directly elected. Would you call Italy, Spain, etc. non-democratic countries just because the PM is appointed by parliament instead of elected directly? The PM is the actual head of the government; the head of state (monarch/president) is a figurehead.
> FWIW, here are the 1932 election results:
_Presidential_ election. President is much less important than you think if you see this from a US-centric view, because the actual head of government is the chancellor! The secretaries/ministers are appointed from the majority parties in parliament, not arbitrarily by the president as in the US. This is still pretty common in many European democracies...
And in all parliament elections, Hitler's party won with a comfortable margin:
1932 July elections : Nazis 230 seats (out of 608) ; next party 133. Almost 2x distance. Hitler's coalition : 267 seats and 43% of vote. Won by simple majority.
1932 November elections (arguably last fair elections in Germany) Nazis 196 seats ; next party 120. In coalition: 247, 42% of vote. Simple majority.
1933 March (definitely last free elections in Germany): Nazis 288 seats; next party 120. Coalition: 340, ~52%, absolute majority .
There's no other way to put this, even if you ignore 1933 results: the Nazis _and Hitler_ were put into power by the (simple) majority of the population. If they had lost even in % of votes to a second party, or something to the effect, then I would also argue that voters didn't put Hitler into power. But as it is...
And you can't really argue that someone could be voting for the Nazis (or coalition parties) without knowing you'd be voting for Hitler, considering how personalistic they were by 1932.
> Please don't feel like I'm scolding you, I really enjoy historical conversations, so thanks for this one.
This has been discussed ad-nauseum, even on wikipedia...
Disclaimer: I already mentioned that results of an election when there is literal vote coercion going on (intimidation, control of the press, etc.) cannot be considered fair. This doesn't negate the fact that he did win elections, and therefore this is still a valid lesson for generations to come.
I think that the journey Hitler undertook in 1924 is actually more useful as a comparison to Trump's story... The media and courts and the incumbent's/MSM's expectations verses the reality of how that would land with the volk. A tangent from the parent but they did say they enjoy historical conversations :D
That's the problem with this statement: Trump is not Hitler and any hypothetical "undemocratic outcomes" aren't apparent in the extreme short term. He hasn't run on a platform of eliminating democracy and there isn't any indication at this point that he will.
I've not been as immersed in the presidential race, but hasn't he explicitly said he wants to be a dictator, this is the last vote you will need, we should stop so and so from voting and so on? Like, right out of his mouth? How is that not an undemocratic platform?
The full quote was that he was going to be a dictator but only on the first day. It's probably one of the dumbest things he's ever said, but the fact that he put a limit on his own supposed dictatorship contradicts him being a dictator. At any rate, while I'm not a fan of what he said, he definitely did not preclude the continuation of American democracy even if interpreted in the most literal possible way.
> this is the last vote you will need
He said that you [the people at his rally] aren't going to need to vote anymore because hes going to accomplish all his goals this time. Not that there won't be a vote or that his supporters won't be allowed to vote. They definitely won't be allowed to vote for him since he'll be at up against the term limit.
> we should stop so and so from voting and so on
This one I've never even heard before outside of him claiming that his opponents want to let non citizens vote
I believe people who claim he will "end democracy" do not believe he will literally put an end to elections. Many places widely considered "undemocratic" also have elections.
> They definitely won't be allowed to vote for him since he'll be at up against the term limit.
I'm sure if Trump were younger and up against term limits, he (and his party) would simply ignore them or change the rules. That's the kind of democracy-ending actions that could easily happen. Lucky for us, I think he's too old for this particular problem.
You are going with the assumption that the election wasn't stolen. If you are correct then Trumo would be taking an anti-democratic position. If the people's will was genuinely to elect him and the election was actually stolen then he would be taking the democratic position.
Not quite. If he actually believes that the election was stolen, whether or not it was, it would be a democratic position. He would be right or wrong, but that doesn't change that his goal would be to protect democracy.
If he actually believes the election was not stolen, whether or not it was, but act as if it was stolen, it would be un-democratic position, because he would, is his perceived reality, try to subvert a democratic process.
People can adapt their beliefs to be convenient to them. In fact, people's beliefs usually correspond to whatever is most convenient. If he should have known that the election was not stolen, then claiming otherwise would be undemocratic, regardless of his true beliefs (which are unknowable anyways).
That's out of context. He was trying to reach people who just don't vote in general, telling them they only needed to bother this one time and he'll fix their problems (costs, economy, etc) so well they can go back to not bothering to vote.
This stuff was not merely spicy words, it was dangerous. Democracy runs on norms and good people, and is precious and hard won. Trump being in power is a risk.
He did not say that [1]. I can't decide whether people keep misrepresenting his statements intentionally, or there's some psychological process in play that prevents them from parsing his speech. He is a terrible communicator after all.
He speaks backwards and from the inside out of sentences. Changes subject mid sentence. Etc.
I think normal people think that is OK but academics thinks it sounds stupid.
In the beginning I believe he got a boost from journalists feeling smart by nitpicking that to manufacture some "gotcha". He is way to easy to misquote to resist the temptation.
What about when he said he wanted to be dictator so people wouldn’t have to vote anymore? And when he made himself above the law with MAGA court justices? Or talked about a firing squad for his opponents and opening fire on peaceful protestors? Or when he attempted a violent coup on the White House? Or when he praised Hitler and asked for generals like Hitlers that will do anything he says without question? Or when he praised Putin, Kim Jun Un, and other the dictators of the world?
But in the end he didn't end Democracy, he let the democratic procedures take place, a fascist wouldn't do that.
> He literally tried to overthrow the election 4 years ago
Not openly, the people who went to the white house weren't under Trumps command. He argued against the election result using the proper tools of the democracy, you are allowed to do that.
I'm not sure why worry now when we already know he handed over the power once. Maybe it wasn't willingly but he will be forced to step down in 4 years as well.
The call to Brad Raffensperger asking him to "find" votes has been public for years. I'm in disbelief that anyone could listen to that conversation and conclude it was anything but an attempt to steal the election.
Trying to cheat a few votes isn't more fascist than gerrymandering, it is corrupt but it isn't fascism.
If he had rigged the whole election I'd say it is fascism, but rigging a whole election is on such a different scale and planning and conspiracy level that it isn't the same thing, he didn't even try to rig the election. If he tried to rig it then it wouldn't be one such call, it would be hundreds with many accomplices.
This is some pretty hardcore rationalization even by modern standards. Trying to "cheat a few (10s of thousands of votes so you win a swing state)" is called trying to steal an election.
but rigging a whole election is on such a different scale and planning and conspiracy level that it isn't the same thing, he didn't even try to rig the election.
He literally did from many different angles. Asking for changed vote counts, fake electors, 60 court cases with no evidence, planning violence to stop the certification of the election.
How do you square what you are saying with these facts?
Trump also made calls to officials in other swing states he lost attempting to change the result. They weren't as public and damning, but had several of them been successful after all was said and done, it would have rigged the whole election.
> he let the democratic procedures take place, a fascist wouldn't do that.
He did so because he had no other choice. Mike Pence, of all people, rescued democracy. If it hadn't been for him, Donald Trump would not accepted the transfer of power.
And this is what the difference boils down to. You and I both know that Trump would have declared himself the winner no matter what the vote count had been. And we also both know that Harris is going to concede to Trump because the vote count says so.
> Again, You know Hitler literally tried a coup, failed and then switched to 'democratic' means?
Hitler never left the seat of power once he got it. Trump did. They are not the same. Hitler did a coup to try to get power, he failed at that, Trump already succeeded grabbing power (he got elected) and then left it.
Sure, it didn’t work—probably because enough people weren’t convinced that it was true enough (and also because they didn’t care)—but it's not unreasonable to think that such an argument should have been enough.
“You are fascist” actually isn’t just an insult. If you display fascist tendencies then you’re a fascist, and he displays many of those typical tendencies.
There are actual fascists (and not as few as I would like) and they need to be called out, but using the term inaccurately and provocatively on a broad group makes it easier to oppose the usage outright. Optics are important to politics, like it or not.
It's only deterministic if you feed the seeds into the exact same pseudorandom number generator and fetch random values from it in the exact same order. If you take a single extra random value out of order, then everything ends up different.
I personally found the idea inspiring and the article itself is explaining it succinctly. Even if it's not completely revolutionary, it's small, self containing concept that's actionable.
Lowley surprised why there are so many harsh voices in this thread, but the article definitely has merrit, even if it won't be usefull/possible to implement for everyone
"There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
The idea that there is no good reason or value in those big bureacratic machines is equally naive as idea that it just has to be that way.
Everything is case-by-case and 'big corpo ALWAYS bad' mentality is just stupid
Actually you can't. Just like on iOS, researchers found that some of the deeply integrated Google system apps intentionally bypass the VPN. The VPN will reduce which ones report directly, but not eliminate many for the critical ones.
