• 0 Posts
  • 94 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2023

help-circle



  • Both. It’s satire.

    The “benefit” of world hunger is that it keeps people locked in their place and entrenches the status quo. This is actually true, and the author believes it, but he doesn’t like it.

    Many people benefit from world hunger though, and every time you hear that poverty is a hard problem to solve you should ask yourself, how much of that is actual problems and how much is the status quo resisting change?







  • It really comes down to what you’re used to. If you use Windows tools then you already know many of the workarounds for Windows and you don’t know the tools that haven’t been ported there.

    For example, you know not to use Python directly, but that you have to install anaconda instead, or whatever the current problems with Python development on Windows are.

    The big obvious thing that you can’t get away from is that you have to do things differently if you have develop for two different OSs with a view to deploying on Linux.

    In particular support for shell scripts is crap on Windows. I could learn powershell or there’s workarounds using WSL and a bunch of other stuff that I don’t need to care about, but I’d rather not bother.


  • I mean coding is difficult enough as it is, I wouldn’t choose to use an OS that makes it even harder.

    I use Linux because it makes my life easier. It has better support for development. Some of the other stuff is maybe not as easy or polished, but the support for dev tools and the ease of deploying to from local machines to servers that are also running Linux makes up for it.

    If I wanted more effort I’d still be using Windows. It would force me to work on cross platform development and deployment. The idea that there’s value in making things unnecessarily hard is just weird. I want Linux to be as simple as possible to use, so I can spend that effort on things that actually matter.







  • You might want to look at Wittgenstein.

    In his early work he went hard on this approach, and insisted that “hey philosophy is dumb”, just agree on the definitions and then chase through the implications.

    In his later work he realised that this is impossible. Words have contextual meaning that is revealed by their usage and you can’t nail down full and complete definitions in advance.

    What you’re talking about absolutely can and will never work. We have tried it and seen it fail.




  • No. The problem with your current bot isn’t that the website authors have a particular axe to grind, it’s that they’re just in a rush and a bit lazy.

    This means that they tend to say news sites which acknowledge and correct their own mistakes have credibility problems, because it’s right there - the news sites themselves acknowledged issues. Even though these are the often most credible sites, because they fix errors and care about being right.

    Similarly the whole left-right thing is just half-assed and completely useless for anyone that doesn’t live in the US. While anyone that does live in the US probably already has an opinion about these US news sources.

    Because these are lazy errors, lots of people will make similar mistakes, and aggregating ratings will amplify this, and let you pretend to be objective without fixing anything.