they are peter-thiel-style libertarians and “race realists”, among the most extreme of the far right you can get. that very term “grey tribe” comes from an essay by scott alexander who consistently goes to bat for racist and fascist causes. there’s nothing remotely left about them.
They are very right wing lol
In my experience which is pretty extensive with python but only moderate with typescript I’d say it’s probably better, easier to work with and offers a similar level of flexibility.
Not sure what you mean by performance but it’s easy to be disciplined when you can’t commit something that isn’t fully annotated. I feel like I can trust it fairly well, except for rare occasions where external library code is wrongly annotated and I have to put some ugly shim in.
Afaik you can just go to definition in literally any language, typing or no.
I’m in total agreement about the packaging though, it sucks.
Yes, I love rust and use it regularly, but it is suitable for totally different use cases than python. Have you worked on a python project using strict type checking enforced in CI? It really isn’t so bad.
That’s not an alternative, you always need tests
Type checking for python is not bad these days, just run pyright (or mypy, I would like to prefer the non MS solution, but we have found pyright much more rigorous) on your code. Yes obviously you can still get out of it with an ignore statement, and that might occasionally be necessary for some libraries, but if you enforce no errors in pre-commit or CI then it’s only a little worse than compile time.
where messing up a space breaks everything
Messing up some character breaks everything in any language, skill issue
there is no real type system
What does “real” mean? It’s pretty robust these days.
Idk, has potential but I’m pretty sure cops are very hierarchical and not supposed to beat up their bosses
Can you point to any period in history in which empires were just chill and sung kumbaya all day long, though?
Ok, you just keep doubling down on straw men and not actually responding to any points made, so I guess we’re done here.
To be blunt, have you? If you had you would know that even among empires not every one behaved with the same level of bloodthirstiness every time. The leap from “people have been violent forever” to “therefore they must be the maximum amount of violent at all opportunities” is totally unsubstantiated.
Sure, what they can get away with to achieve their goals is one factor in how countries behave. But it is totally absurd to suggest that a country’s culture would have no impact on the approach they take to foreign affairs. It has dramatic impacts on all their other laws and ways of doing things, by what possible crazy coincidence would foreign policy always be totally identical regardless of culture?
So yeah, things would be different. Way back in this discussion you snarkily characterised a straw man arguing that things would be perfect and people singing kumbaya, but nobody (here arguing against you in this thread) thinks that. This meme is about dropping bombs. We have substantial real world evidence that China does not prefer to take that approach. The USA absolutely does prefer to take that approach, even when other options would be more successful.
What is your idea that they “can’t get away with dropping bombs” based on? They absolutely could, and they still don’t do it. What it’s based on is that you assume they would if they could, that’s projection, because clearly you like the idea of bombing people for profit.
That’s just a thing you made up to justify not feeling bad, there is no reason to believe that anyone else would act the same way.
Can you be more clear in your question?
No, the arms manufacturers just don’t have the same level of influence over the government and armed forces that they do in America, and the people in the government who decide whether to drop bombs won’t personally get rich if they buy more bombs.
That isn’t something unique to China btw but basically almost every country except USA and a few others.
Idk, they probably have had the opportunity sometimes, but they don’t have the same military industrial complex as the USA pushing for it at every chance. So the cost benefit analysis is different. Quite often it doesn’t benefit “the USA” as much as a few specific people within, and that mechanic doesn’t exist in the same way for China.
What do you mean, different? Every country is different from each other. If you were clear about what you’re implying here, i.e. “different as in having no negative sides” then it would be obvious that your argument is against an absolute straw man. Nobody made such a claim.
It’s not like China doesn’t have issues but I think you don’t understand or want to think about just how incredibly fucked up the USA is. China is definitely way less bad.
How many countries have they couped? How many civil wars in poor countries are they responsible for? To you in your comfy home this is just academic but these are the worst atrocities in human history, and the USA does them one after the other after the other.
Even if the tool works perfectly, you have to run it every time you change something. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s still much nicer to just have a macro to derive it at compile time.
It’s not hard, just if you’re doing it for a struct with a lot of fields it’s a lot of boilerplate
Camelcase in python, ew, a fundamentalist would do that
Sales tax, has different acronyms in different countries such as Value Added Tax (VAT), Goods and Services Tax (GST)…