Worst part of static compiled languages is the ugly syntax. Worst part of dynamic systems is they aren't machine-understandable. It's a direct tradeoff that results from formal language theory. Ruby isn't an answer to this, in fact it lies so far on the dynamic side of the fence that the one IDE targeted at it is more of an impediment than a help. There is no answer to the tradeoff, though there are a few current attempts, like Zest.
I personally don't need or want a computer to help me to understand the code I work on. It would be nice but not worth the need for a compile step. Pike looks like a compiled language, but doesn't even try to give you any of the advantages of machine understandability. It's purely cosmetic, why in the world would anyone want Python to look like C? If you want a dynamic language and don't want to deal with Ruby's... eccentricities, just use Python like everyone else.
I liked mandmandam's answer, but there is also the short version:
It is a bit like a barrister not asking questions they don't know the answer to. They have a vision of the world they want to promote and typically aren't going to report on anything that they aren't confident to be neutral or non-threatening to that vision.
The corporate media's main tactic is to just put their worldview to people over and over again until any dissenters either run out of energy to push back or become marginalised. These groups exist because a someone or someones with money has a vision of the world they want to promote. Otherwise there isn't enough income to make the thing tick.
> What incentives do Corporate media have to ignore these current set of protests?
I mean... How much Chomsky have you read? He'll give you a much better overview than I could. This shit isn't new. I'll have a crack at the question though:
Major networks are owned by just five or six corporations. Their boardrooms and major shareholders interlock with defense contractors, private prison giants, and border security firms that make billions from deportation policies. Have you any idea how much of our money these fucks are pulling in? ... Every protest covered legitimately threatens their shareholders' portfolios. This also goes for big tech/social media.
Networks also fear losing access to both parties, which are pushing harsh immigration policies. Kamala swore to be tougher on immigrants than Trump, and Democrats have lately been crowing that Trump is deporting fewer people than Biden did.
Any "objectivity" is a thin facade. They don't want to challenge the immigration narrative that drives ratings among their core demographic, which is such a helpful distraction from inequality, and which is driving their shareholders portfolios up.
When forced to cover protests, media employs tactical reporting: dramatically under-counting crowds, obsessively focusing on any hint of disorder, and platforming the most extreme voices while ignoring reasonable demands. The well worn playbook is designed to delegitimize, and a horrifying proportion of Americans eat that shit up and ask for seconds.
The corporate media isn't neutral, or just biased. It's complicit. These issues matter hugely to the status quo they defend, and people recognizing their own power, and what our taxes are being spent on, is a massive threat to an unfathomably evil status quo.
"The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly." - Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, 1988 (and look how media has consolidated since then)
This is outdated. These days billionaires openly and publicly tell the owned media what to write.
Bezos, in his own words:
"I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning:
I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others. [...]"
It's true, it's not a very well kept secret. And still, even if most Americans distrust it, the vast majority of us remain wildly ignorant of just how bad our media really is.
"The general population doesn't know what's happening, and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know" - maybe even more true now than it was in 1993.
Codeword for "Jeff Bezos's continued monopolistic domination of online retail and logistics at the expense of everyone else". In other words, he's doing to right-libertarians what rich billionaires always do to right-libertarians. Play them like a fiddle.
those are just extra features that let hyperlinks behave like buttons though. Of course, this is under the strict definition that a "hyperlink" is a link between two web pages.
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Ukraine was the victim of an act of aggression from Russia. Pretty obvious that the US gave its word it would protect them.
> Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later.
The threats of nuclear aggression were there from the start. What other thing do you think prevents the EU from raining death on the Russians from above.
It's a reason but it's not a strong reason. Back then Ukraine was indistinguishable from Russia, basically a small breakaway country from the USSR. So the intent was more likely that the US wouldn't attack Ukraine. Besides which, the nukes in Ukraine were never under Ukraine's control or possession, so the agreement looks to be more for optics than anything.
It's just the US word signed in an agreement. Meaning the US word is now of the same value of Russia.
Saying Ukraine is a "small breakaway country from the USSR", while being the largest country in Europe is one of the most detached takes I've seen on this subject lmao
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
> Did you even know the difference between Ukraine and Russia four years ago?
Yes, ~7 years into the current war, I think a lot of people did.
> Much less 30 years ago.
Yes, I knew the difference, then -- when the breakup of the USSR was relatively recent and the issues in and between post-Soviet states were frequent news items. Again, I think a lot of people did.
Heck, I knew the difference when I was in grade school and both were part of the USSR. There's probably a fair number of people outside the US who have some understanding of the differences between Texas and California, too.
> They were considered basically the same country.
Four years ago was seven years after Putin annexed part of Ukraine. This was considered a news story at the time. So it's not as if Ukraine has only been in the news since 2022.
The ice cores appears somewhat reliable for certain questions, e.g. how high were the CO2 values in the winter on the poles 1000 years ago.
The link does not at all answer the main question for beginning to evaluate a temperature reconstruction of 125.000 years, that is: how well are the global annual temperature estimated from ice cores, for the years where we do have instrumental data?
Ice cores are one of the data sources used in temperature reconstruction. From the linked page:
By measuring the ratios of different water isotopes in polar ice cores, we can determine how temperature in Antarctica and Greenland has changed in the past.
Focusing on the multiple goals and limits seems like a much better way to measure the health of economies (or large systems). Is there any country that uses this model, or a similar one, as their main basis for measurement?
Too late, but I hope you see it. I only want to add a highlight.
One you fix a finite set of symbols, let's say ascii [1], the amount of numbers you can describe with it with strings of finite length is different from the amount you can describe if you allow also infinite length.
The difference between finite length and infinite length in this problem is very important.
Good point, the depth first search algorithm is a bit lack luster for this case:
1 -> .1
2 -> .01
3 -> .001
4 -> .0001
5 -> .00001
6 -> .000001
. -> .0∞1
I would definitely recommend not judging the quality of the video based upon the quality of my reasoning in the experiment.
That would only count the rationals which you can definitely count off a carefully arranged matrix of rationals. But reals = rationals and irrationals and the irrationals are uncountable.
