Not every big change is necessarily something you can meaningfully break up into small changes. Sometimes when you could break it up into small changes, you have to change its structure in a meaningful way to half-implement it and test out that half-version. It takes experience to know when it's best to get the whole structure expressed it code, then to go back and tweak it based on any compiler errors. Most of the time the compiler errors are very minor things like a typo, so you don't lose any meaningful time fixing them.
- Posts
- 10
- Comments
- 3684
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 10
- Comments
- 3684
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Sure. Racism will always be a factor.
Good thing I'm not selling anything.
Instead I'm making a point that people who say that hearing what happened isn't sufficient, but watching a video somehow is.
Minneapolis: Check.
On video: Check.
Massive uproar: Check.
White victim: Nope.
George Floyd's death shows that what matters is that it happened in front of witnesses who were recording on video, not the colour of the victims' skin.
I think the agencies' rottenness was a back burner issue. It mattered, but there were so many other things that mattered more. There's also the fact that the victims of awful ICE and Border Patrol agents were almost never Americans. They even knew better than to touch Europeans or rich Asians. As a result, any terrible things they did mostly stayed under the radar.
Show me the link where they said it was all the result of sloppy training under Trump.
I'm not saying they never said that the agents needed more training. I'm saying the claim is that it is all the result of sloppy training. That there are no other issues.
Being a cop is a less dangerous job than being a pizza delivery driver. The vast majority of cops go their entire careers without firing a shot except at the range. Yet they act like every time they stop someone for speeding they're about to be murdered.
It's a fact that because of the American gun culture that's more true in the US than it is in most countries. So, maybe as long as the US has guaranteed gun rights and the accompanying gun culture, US cops will be in slightly more danger than cops around the world. But, there's no reason that the job couldn't fundamentally be about keeping people safe vs. shooting bad guys.
Small change and run works for small ideas. Sometimes you have a big idea that's hard to break down into small chunks.
Was anybody at all saying that this was all the result of sloppy training under Trump? The GOP wasn't saying that, because they praise everything Trump does. The most useless and cowardly of the democrats did mention training, but not as the only issue. Two things can be true: the new recruits that have joined in the last year are undertrained and incompetent, and the entire institution is rotten to the core.
ICE and Border Patrol are rotten. But, it's not just them. All policing in the US needs to be torn apart and rebuilt. Too many bad apples were left in the bunch, and now the bunch has rotted. Police officers really need to believe in their core that their mission is "To Protect And Serve". They can't see themselves as the "Thin Blue Line" between order and chaos. I would bet that the majority of American police would sneer in derision at Robert Peel's principles of policing, when really that should be a bare minimum 19th century historical document that is taken for granted in the modern world.
Why do you think people ran when people mentioned "la migra"?
Because they didn't want to be arrested?
Most programmers I know compile a program when they have fully expressed an idea they have in their heads. It might just be the first outline of the idea. But, it's a solid first sketch that contains all the key details. Unfortunately, often that's a complex idea so it can be somewhere on the order of an hour before they stop coding and try compiling. One reason for that is that compiling the program is a context switch, and when they context switch they can't keep all of their thoughts about the program in their head, instead they have to think about compiling. And, if compiling takes more than a few seconds their attention also starts to drift to other things.
Coding for something like an hour without making a single typo or braino is difficult. This is especially true if the programmer is attempting to express a creative idea. Their focus won't be on getting every single detail correct, it will be in sketching the shape of the idea as completely as possible. 99% of the time, those mistakes are entirely obvious and take no time to fix. But the compiler is (luckily) unforgiving of errors, even if the fix is obvious. But, that's why it's suspicious if the code compiles perfectly the first time.
It's possible that some people have different workflows. Maybe they write out the entire program in comments and pseudocode before using an actual programming language. If you do that, then you can probably afford to take a break from the actual coding more often and compile what you have so far. Maybe you're compiling every 5 minutes instead of every 30, in which case it's pretty normal not to have any compiler errors. Maybe some people use a super advanced IDE that effectively compiles the code in the background all the time and flags errors that will become compiler errors. I think a lot of people who became programmers before that kind of thing was popular find that sort of thing to be distracting. If they're trying to write something on line 50 and the IDE flags something from line 45, they might have already shifted their context a bit, and having to go back and fix that will distract them from the thing they're currently trying to express.
Personally, I've often had no compiler errors when writing tests. Tests are often very small, self-contained bits of code that don't take long to write, and aren't very complex, so it's pretty normal to have a test compile and run perfectly the first time.
The point is, programmers who have been programming for a long time are the ones who are more likely to be surprised if their code compiles perfectly the first time.
Yes, so don't rely on watching videos. The only way you know for sure is if you get shot yourself. Anybody claiming that you need to watch the video to truly understand what happened is deluded.
We cannot deny this is happening and you better face the ugly reality we live in
There are more than 2 options. You don't have to either a) "watch the video(s)" or b) "hide from reality". There are also options like "don't watch the video but accept that the millions / billions of people who have watched it have described it accurately."
Some of you may die, but that is a risk that I am willing to take.
"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice that I am willing to make."
Get your quotes right.
You could also have gone with Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
But, if you wanted to quote about the futility of using violence you could have gone with Gandhi:
"I object to violence because, when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent."
Or Joan Baez:
"Nonviolence is a flop. The only bigger flop is violence."
Or MLK Jr:
"Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon . . . which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals"
Maybe you're so gun-brained you think that MLK and Gandhi were wrong, and that they would have achieved better results if they'd shot back. Maybe you've never heard of the velvet revolution, or the 1919 Egyptian revolution, or what led to the Berlin Wall coming down.
If evidence was enough to topple this regime, we wouldn’t be here.
Of course evidence isn't enough. The question is what comes after evidence. Is it violence or not? Non-violence clearly motivates people. Only 2 people have been killed and it has resulted in millions of people protesting. Would just as many people be coming out to support Minnesota if the score were 2 ICE agents dead and 2 protesters dead? I don't think so.
Do you honestly think you can take on the US government including the entire US military with a violent revolution? And, if you did manage to win that violent revolution, would it be worth the cost? If you're going for the violent win, that's what you have to aim for. If you go for the non-violent option, the path is instead that more and more people defect to your side and refuse to use violence against non-violent protesters. That has a much better chance of winning IMO.
Kindly go fuck yourself you patronising git.
You say you feel like you're losing your mind, and you attack someone who suggests maybe you should take a step back. You clearly have fragile mental health. Just unplug for a few days.
That's why I think if you haven't seen it and just rely on news and online comments you don't really know what happened.
That's why I think that if you didn't witness something personally and just rely on watching videos you don't really know what happened.
That's why I think that if you didn't get shot yourself and just relied on watching something happen in person you don't really know what happened.
...
People are currently not shooting back, and people are currently being murdered in the streets
A small enough number that they can all be listed by name. You're correct, it's a plan that is working incredibly well. A handful of people have died, and those handful of deaths have resulted in protests by millions of people. The reason that those millions of people are willing to protest is that the people being killed are clearly blameless.
If someone died in a shootout with ICE, it's much less likely that millions of people would turn out to protest their death. Thousands maybe, but not millions. For millions to show up you need a clear example of "good guys" and "bad guys".
then admit that the current government is painting the victims as terrorists
Yes, the government is trying to create its own "good guys" and "bad guys" narrative because, as I said, it works. But, they are utterly failing in the attempt to paint these people as bad guys because they're being killed while unarmed and not fighting back.
So why do you think your narrative is any stronger than the one that the president and many popular news media outlets are complicit in
Because "my" narrative is clearly supported by all the video evidence that is being collected by hundreds of people with their phones out. If people weren't there with their phones out documenting things, then the Trump admin's narrative would probably win. But, instead of guns, people are using cameras, and it's working.
Especially when you personally are telling people not to watch the objective footage
I'm telling people that they don't need to traumatize themselves by watching footage that literally millions, if not possibly billions of other people have already watched. Their additional eyeballs on that footage isn't going to do anything.
The world is watching the US right now
Yes, and the world has sympathy with the protesters because the protesters are unarmed while the ICE goons are armed. If the protesters started shooting, the world would quickly lose sympathy with the protesters. Instead they'd just sigh and think "great, the Americans are trying to solve everything with guns again".
I’m feel like I’m losing my mind!
It might be good for you to unplug and stop subjecting yourself to the constant news cycle then. Don't watch all these videos, just take care of your own mental health.
Anger also clouds the mind.
But, if anger motivates action, why aren't you watching those things? Why do you feel you have to watch this particular video, but not those other ones? Is it that, even after all this time, you think Trump and his goons might be telling the truth, and you need to check for yourself? Is it that the literal millions of other people who have watched the video might be lying about what it contains?
You're the one who suddenly started talking about buying things from me.