I don't think that's the right metaphor to use here, it exists at a different level than what I would consider "reinventing the wheel". That to me is more some attempt to make a novel outward-facing facet of the program when there's not much reason to do so. For example, reimplementing shared memory using a custom kernel driver as your IPC mechanism, despite it not doing anything that shared memory doesn't already do.
The difference between the examples is so trivial I'm not really sure why the parent comment felt compelled to complain.
Just to clarify this as well, while sixth form (17~18 years old) is optional in the UK, education is still compulsory until you're 18. you have the option to do this at an apprenticeship or skills based school but lots of people do just default to a levels.
> in the UK, education is still compulsory until you're 18
I've just looked it up because I hadn't heard this - it was only compulsory until 16 "in my day"! Turns out it still is, here in Wales, and also Scotland and NI. Only England changed it to 18. Our devolved governments love to make things confusing.
What are you talking about? The US has the 2nd heighest emissions behind China, almost double India's. The only countries higher than it per-capita are Canada, Australia and petro-states or tiny countries.
And China is already leading the world in moving to renewable technology, they are moving in the right direction (not entirely for altruistic reasons - it fulfils their ambitions of energy self-sufficiency).
Another example of Democrats being really poor communicators on specific important issues—they could easily frame renewables as a protectionist issue and make it relevant but instead they don't know how to talk about it so they just avoid it whenever possible.
I do wonder whether democrats will shift to post-conservative messaging. "Let's preserve what we have left of our beautiful American forests" might be able to resonate. Idk.
That exact message has been tried and energy independence/stick-it-to-OPEC remains fairly common way of trying to sell it. Actual measures to onshore renewable industry were successfully demonized as corrupt, didn’t go over well.
I'm sure in some meeting somewhere someone floated that exact idea and then got promptly laughed out of the room by a bunch of people who live in a filter bubble in which protectionism is too politically close to populism to be palatable.
Why cherry-pick per-capita when what matters to the climate is actual output, not output per capita. Lets take Australia, as an example, their total co2 output is around 1% of the world's co2 output. If Australia ceased producing all of its co2, it wouldn't make much difference at all. Per capita figures are just a waste of everyone's time.
As someone from a smallish country (UK), I don't think I agree. Per capita is the only-) way of measuring emmissions that doesn't wind up a proxy for just listing the biggest countries.
Almost 1/5 people are in China, if tomorrow the country divided itself up into smaller nations would thay change anything about the pollution bring emmited?
I always try to convince people the best metric is CO2/land area. It actually adjusts for the size of your country without the silly idea that having more people means your country is doing "better" from an emissions perspective.
Great, let's just move everyone to Australia! Or wait...
Unless you have policy recommendations to change the total number of people on Earth (please don't) then global emissions per capita are the only stat that matters.
This is a naive take. Of course these developers already permaban cheaters. Firstly many of these games are free to play so "getting another license" is a non issue. They're doing hardware bans nowadays which are harder to avoid but not impossible.
Half the battle is detection though. If you don't detect cheaters quick enough they ruin enough games that genuine players start getting frustrated and leave. Anti cheats help with this detection.
Probably every anti cheat idea you can think of, in terms of detection, prevention and punishment, has probably already been tried by a large online multiplayer game. It is an extremely difficult problem to solve, a constant arms race.
It's not possible to completely solve this problem with technology.
High level chess players (GMs) can win with just a few bits of information transmitted to them by a cheating accomplice (a cough if it's a critical position to spend extra time on, etc). Similarly, high level gamers only need the slightest of edges to win, and therefore only need the slightest of cheating.
That's why I think trusted user bases are the way to go. My initial ideas were naive, but I think the core idea is solid. If you had to pay $1000 to enter a "trusted club" which uses your hardware fingerprint, and all of your online interactions in a game were guaranteed to be with other people who paid $1000 to be in the club, would that not be a large deterrent to cheating?
That's just elitist though isn't it? These games are enjoyed by players from all over the world, including massive numbers of players in countries with far less average disposable income. Its common in many countries to go to an internet cafe to play these games as they don't own their own hardware even.
It would also massively reduce the number of players. Competitive multiplayer games rely on large active playerbases for fast and fair matchmaking. That's why free to play has become the dominant model for these games. If you have to pay $1000 to play one of these games, they have no chance vs. the competition.
Obviously you can't completely solve this problem, but you can minimize it as much as possible.
Also these sorts of "trusted clubs" do exist for certain games (e.g. FaceIt for CounterStrike) but ultimately it still just relies on anti-cheat to establish that trust.
Money is just one way of establishing "trust clubs". Time is another. For free-to-play games, you could make it so that users are peered with other users who have put in the same amount of time into the system. So if you've gone a whole year without being flagged for cheating in the system, you'll be paired up with other users who have also gone years without being flagged.
If you create a new account, you'll be peered with other new accounts (low trust). Still possible to cheat, but the cost is very high (years of effort to get accepted in the best trust clubs)
CSGO used to have that, more or less. You could play for free but then you were not in the "prime" matchmaking pool. Only by paying, something like 13€, and registering your phone number, which could only be registered once, would you get prime matchmaking. I thought it made quite a bit of sense but I think they scrapped the system in CS2.
It's going on a tangent, but one naive take which continues to amuse me when it comes up is community/third party servers and policing of cheating. As though delegating that responsibility is the goal or that it would scale to handle the size of modern playerbases including the ratio of admins to players to be able to monitor and respond to (alleged) cheaters
But as gaming has grown and become more mainstream, the ratio of enthusiasts who are willing to admin to casual players who don't has changed. Server sizes have changed over time with smaller games like 5v5 becoming way more common.
Riot games use theirs (Vanguard) to improve detection of cheating software. basically the idea is by being on from the moment the computer is booted up it can validate the environment better.
Here's a recent blog post by riot detailing their recent deployment of the system for league of legends, the biggest online multiplayer game in the world
People in Europe are white. Of course engineers, politicians, cooks, street sweepers are going to be white.
Societies, not only in Europe, have historically been men-dominated. So, again, the elite is going to be mostly men.
It is relevant that what you call a "quick aside" was even made because it reveals the mindset and deeper agenda that pervades some parts of academia and political circles these days, which bluntly is anti-white (and, God forbid, male ones).
Funnily enough, white people were a minority in the French Empire of the 19th century, where Vernes wrote his books. You should read about the second revolution of France, in 1848, where women's role in creating the IInd Republic was instrumental, and yet were refused the right to vote. Underlining those thematics in Vernes books is still interesting, it doesn't have to be relevant to today.
Also, what's that thing about academia and politicians being "anti-white"? This sounds weird.
It is only "anti-white" in the sense it's criticizing white men from over a hundred years ago who were doing pretty horrible things in the name of colonialism.
And the fact they were white is pretty important as they themselves used this as justification for their superiority and thus colonialism.
It would be more productive to engage with the meat of the article rather than dismissing it because they mentioned the race and gender of the subjects and engaging in "anti-woke" dog whistling.
Why do you need to refer to Europeans as "white men" then? To me this highlights the deeper thinking, if not obsession, of the person...
It's similar to the anti-Japanese and anti-Chinese campaigns in the US in the 40s to 60s that over-stressed the "race" of those people. It's similar to the classic racism of over-stressing how Africans are black.
Jules Vernes is a notorious misogynist and racist. Read "The Mysterious Island" for instance. He was a product of his time, but clearly not the best one on those grounds.
Also "People in Europe are white" is really something you just hear from people without any European historical culture, and/or people wanting to sell a racist ideology. You have the whole spectrum of colors in Europe, and that's not recent at all. Africa is 30km from Europe, Asia is connected to it, and people travel since before we were modern humans.
> "People in Europe are white" is really something you just hear from people without any European historical culture, and/or people wanting to sell a racist ideology
There's of course a lot of cross-communication with other continents, from the muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula to the Ottoman wars in eastern Europe, and the colonizing empires.
But the European history is very strongly predominantly white, and pretending otherwise is something you only hear from politically oriented people, unless you try to push ridiculous ideas like 'Italians are not white' as I've seen here and there
> European history is of course very strongly predominantly white
"White" ?
In the context of the thinking in Europe at the time of Verne .. what is "white"?
eg: The Races of Europe: A Sociological Study (1899) - Ripley
Ripley classified Europeans into three distinct races: Teutonic [..] Mediterranean [..] Alpine [..]
Ripley's tripartite system of race put him at odds both with others on the topic of human difference, including those who insisted that there was only one European race, and those who insisted that there were at least ten European races (such as Joseph Deniker, whom Ripley saw as his chief rival).
You're talking about the general history of Europe, and the vision in our current culture, why are you trying to push an obsolete taxonomy "of the time" ?
> "People in Europe are white" is really something you just hear from people without any European historical culture, and/or people wanting to sell a racist ideology
That's clearly talking about current notions, and not "current in the times of Jules Vernes"
Your request for me to "read more carefully" is very much unwelcome : stand by your own writing instead of trying to shift the meaning
> That's clearly talking about current notions, and ...
written by somebody other than myself.
> Your request for me to "read more carefully" is
again restated. Please read more carefully, pay attention to who said what, and don't falsely take the wrong people to task over what other people said.
We all make mistakes, perhaps you can now recognise and acknowledge yours.
"White" is a fictional category, and it is an empty one at that. "White" and "Black" were invented in the Colony of Virginia to keep African and Irish/Scottish slaves apart and from uniting against their masters. To accomplish this end, "white" slaves were given the privilege of being whipped with their shirts on. This was enough to create a feeling of privilege among the "white" slaves and a feeling of resentment among the "black" slaves. Sound familiar?
Eventually, "Black American" actually became a real cultural identity, and in some sense an indigenous ethnic group that formed in the US among the descendants of African slaves (who, usually, also have some European ancestry). Nothing analogous occurred for "White American". There is no "White American" as an ethnic or cultural identity. It's a completely negative notion defined in terms of what it is not. This is why the whole "white boy" phenomenon we're seeing today is preposterously silly. It's not an identity. There is no "white culture". "Black" on its own is not an authentic identity either, unless it is short for "Black American. Black American culture has little to do with Africa, even if some elements of their culture have remote African inspiration or roots.
The "white boy" phenomenon is just a sad result of the loss of ethnic and religious identity. The US is a country especially prone to this issue. The first wave of European immigrants formed ethnic enclaves. With each passing generation, the likelihood of intermarriage, especially with members of the same religion, increased. Over time, ethnic identity is watered down to such a degree that the only remaining identity is religious identity. So, in the US, religious identity played a double role as both ethnic and religious identity. Now, as religious identity has eroded under the incessant pressures of liberal hyperindividualism, people are grasping at something that can given them a sense of identity. This is one reason for the rise of various ideologies, sexual and racial ideologies. So, in this case, the "white boy" is basically a kid with some kind of European ancestry who has no ethnic or religious identity who has latched onto this "white" label in an attempt to make up for having neither.
So, what Europeans had in common was a broadly Christian identity, not "whiteness", whatever that even means. Yes, the peoples of Europe tend to have less skin pigment, they tend to have different shaped noses, different phenotypes, but this is not a cultural or ethnic identity. Having blue eyes or brown eyes is not a cultural identity. These are the kinds of features that people latch onto when they don't have or have a weak ethnic identity.
Was Verne more, or less, misogynist and racist than his contemporaries? I was under the impression that both were common during his day. From the little Verne that I've read, I didn't have the impression that he had a particularly bad opinion of "the savages" he describes in his stories.
I'm not sure this analysis is totally correct though, after all without spoiling to much, an Indian prince features prominently in some of the best known stories of Jules Verne, and another of the famous ones is about a Chinese man.
And most stories take place with characters that are British or American bordering on parodies, rarely French people.
The role of epistemic superiority structures a persistent division throughout the Voyages between the white male scientist (in the singular) and ignorant natives (in the plural)’
The addition of completely unnecessary (to the comparison) "male" really paints this as flag waving.
You dismiss a lot of modern technologies as "unnecessarily complicated", you advocate for reinventing the wheel coming across with a very "I know better" attitude.
For example you create your own bundler, when modern bundlers are very mature and good.
For example you dismiss SSR as unnecessary and then basically roll your own. You dismiss modern frameworks out of hand then list performance improvements they can make for you (e.g. keeping state in html).
Your last two performance improvements are about not taking drugs???
I'm really pro people doing things themselves for fun and all that but this article and you comment comes across as so arrogant and condescending whilst also seeming to show ignorance (or at least willful dismissal) of exactly where modern JavaScript development is at, and present it as state of the art performance improvements.
Yes, I do advocate for reinventing the wheel and I do so with a high level of arrogance. That is one of the benefits of measuring everything extensively… you get to be arrogant because you know what is superior according to a bunch of objective evidence.
I rolled my own bundler only because it’s tiny and without dependencies. I am not rewriting ESLint even though I absolutely dread its large number of dependencies.
That's only true now. You don't know that DNA leakage won't be a higher risk in the future (and FWIW, my opinion is the opposite of yours regarding the future risks). Moreover you can change your passwords, but you can't change your DNA.
That thread is all over the place, the only two vase-related things I found were:
a) A woman in Russia hand-made a vase that looks similar to the Egyptian ones.
b) Some guy said the vases are forged, and made in modern times, because their provenance is not proven.
Neither of these strike me as particular interesting statements, and the rest of that thread is about completely unrelated topics. I closed it at the "Dudes Think They Can Prove Atlantis by Measuring a Vase" link, because that's exactly the kind of condescending crap I'm talking about.
defaultdict is ubiquitous in modern python, and is far from a complicated concept to grasp.