I assume you're being funny, but the question is, will killing someone to make an example of them deter others? And the answer is: not as much as to justify killing people for being violent.
(It's one thing to ask people to be fair in responding to your actual comment and not a strawman. It's another to ask us to pretend we were born yesterday. We do in fact have external sources of information about Lonsdale's political allegiences.)
This is interesting partly because Alex Karp (at least used to) occasionally claim to be a socialist when it was inconvenient or uncool to be defined as a standard issue rightwinger. Never thought that meant much myself - any more than it's meaningful for Lonsdale to define himself as against "evil authoritarian forces" here while advocating the murder of his political opponents - but I know people who took him seriously for some reason.
It's good to have these guys out in the open as Pinochet types, though. Silver lining of the Trump era.
Why should they be? The most common argument against communism is "my dad told me communism is bad" but perhaps you have a better reasoning against it?
I could be wrong but I'm sure there are at least a few members of Mao's old guard who are still alive today, and I'm pretty certain some who were in power during Democratic Kampuchea are alive as well.
So you think it's ok to kill people who have not killed hundreds of millions because those who did and the former people are both labeled as communists? That's not just insanely inhumane and against basic principles of law but also just illogical.
> That's not just insanely inhumane and against basic principles of law but also just illogical.
I agree.
As a fun science experiment, you should try posting this somewhere else, but replace "communists" with "fascists" and see what kind of replies you get.
That is authoritarianism. Indeed, you have a valid point, except that communism in fact only is an economic theory and does not implicate anything on other areas of government. There is no difference between a capitalist authoritarian and a communist authoritarian except that a communist actually has a story (i.e. a fairy-tale) to sell to their people.
the problem with communism in Russia has been that the minute the economy theory inevitably fails, you now have to starve the farmers, and when they don't agree with being starved you need to send them to a gulag
The problem isn't the "commun" but rather the "ism" - the elevation of a set of beliefs above individual human lives, and then consequently people leveraging that belief system to justify overt harm to other humans (justify to others and to themselves). Given that "communism" has very little relevance in the modern western world, yet a few other "isms" have been widely adopted to the totalitarian levels "communism" had been, the reasonable suspicion is to judge anybody still bashing "communism" as doing so with the motivation of pushing their own "ism".
He might have said authoritarians, instead of communists and islamists. He didn't though, he was selective about which kind of authoritarians he didn't like.
I'm sure someone out there is dedicating their life to fighting fascists.
BTW, in most right wing circles I listen in on, fascists are called "communists" for some reason. IMHO, there's no significant distinction nowadays b/c everyone does it "for the people" regardless.
Ehhhh, that's a bit of a false equivalence. Most communist/anarchist/etc are "for the people", and the people in question are often marginalized or oppressed groups with little to no institutional power.
Fascists, on the other hand are "for our people", and the "our people" bit often means White, rich, me and mine type thing. A good example is how the American right-wing often talks about immigration. They'll talk about a mythical "good immigrant" from a south American country, we can let them in because they're "one of the good ones". Not like those other brown people, of course.
Playing without the net is what Sam Harris calls this kind of logic. I must say I agree.
Your statement is only true if:
- collateral damage in war is the same thing as "murder"
- you only count dead if a jew killed them
- of course you never count anyone who dies by being killed by a non-jew
- or if you do count them, claim that it's a false flag by jews
Russia is literally waging a full scale war against Ukraine, China has concentration camps and forced sterilizations, Iran is executing and disappearing people by the hundreds as we speak, etc, etc. But of course, none of that counts or it's the jews fault anyway.
You can prove that most people don't learn CSS using most LLMs: they're trained on github code.
A card with a top image, some text and a button - which should be...
- A card
- A top image
- Some text
- A button
ie 4 HTML elements, ends up being about 10 HTML elements with various strange hacks in the div-soup HTML the models have scraped from Github.
Then someone else comes along and uses tailwind, because naming 10 arbitrary HTML elements (rather than .card, .card img, .card p, .card button or similar) is hard. They're right, but the problem is they didn't need that many elements in the first place and wouldn't if they'd just learnt CSS.
I’d spend time on the CSS Grid and Flex playgrounds. Get used to creating layouts using grids and padding and gaps, leave block elements and margins to actual writing.
CSS has gotten much, much better, which is why it doesn't suck so much these days, but come on now, using a div with a background image was a common practice. There were like, what, 3 different hacks to center an element inside another?
People don't just opt for a plethora of different tools to deal with it "just because".
So much this. The amount of unnecessary divs created by LLMs are an abomination. Let alone the blatant disregard for any semantic elements. Took a lot of strongly worded instructions to get rid of the bias for div-span-spaghetti, and it still slips in entirely superfluous elements.
> It's simply easier for the Microsoft development team to maintain one version of the suite and they've chosen the most convenient option — Click-to-Run (vs Microsoft Store)
Must be significantly harder to develop MS Store apps. Due to sandboxing limitations?
Microsoft publish two different editions of the Windows Minecraft launcher with different sets of features. One is the MS Store version and one is the regular version
Probably because there's internal conflicts between the store team and the applications group, that neither of them want to deal with anymore, this might have been for the windows S support (remember store only windows).
They have their own distribution system, so they don't need this anymore.
BGR used to be a decent blog when they were covering Blackberries... but once your main jam dies off all you can do is turn to longform slop a decade later.
It's a non-issue with GraalVM native binaries. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46445989 for an example: this CLI tools starts in ms, fast enough you can launch it during tab completions and have it invoke a REST API without any noticeable delay whatsoever.
But also when running on the JVM, things have improved dramatically over the last few years, e.g. due to things such as AOT class loading and linking. For instance, a single node Kafka broker starts in ~300 ms.
graalvm is literally 500x more overhead than a statically linked dash script.
Maybe not an issue for terminal UIs, but the article mentions both TUIs and CLI tools. A lot of people use CLI tools with a shell. As soon as you do `for file in *.c; do tool "$file"; done` (as a simple example), pure overhead on the order of even 10s of ms becomes noticeable. This is not theoretical. I recently had this trouble with python3, but I didn't want to rewrite all my f-strings into python2. So, it does arise in practice. (At least in the practice of some.)
A hasty generalization with a little confirmation bias, perhaps?
$ time keenwrite.bin --version
KeenWrite version 3.6.5
Copyright 2016-2025 White Magic Software, Ltd.
user 0m0.329s
From Claude:
> It's worth noting this is a common perception about Java, and there's some historical truth to it (especially with Swing desktop applications from the 2000s). However, the absolute statement "no Java app... ever" is the fallacy - it's an overgeneralization from limited personal experience to a universal claim.
reply