You say that as if members of US government agencies didn't plot terror attacks on Americans (Operation Northwood), steal the medical records of American whistleblowers (Ellsberg), had to be prevented from assassinating American journalists (Gordon Liddy, on Jack Anderson), collude to assassinate American political activists (Fred Hampton), spy on presidential candidates (Watergate), sell weapons to countries who'd allegedly supported groups who'd launched suicide bombing attacks on American soldiers (Iran-Contra), allow drug smugglers to flood the USA with cocaine so that they could supply illegal guns to terrorists abroad on their return trip (Iran-Contra again) and get caught conducting illegal mass-surveillance on American people as a whole (Snowden). Among others.
It's super-naive to suggest that government agencies wouldn't act against the interest of American citizens and companies because there might be consequences if they were caught. Most of the instances above actually were instances where the perpetrators did get caught, which is why we know about them.
You don’t even have to be this conspiratorially minded to believe the NSA is a legitimate suspect here. (For the record, I think literally every intelligence agency on Earth is plausible here.)
You kind of lost the thread when you say, “act against the interests of American citizens and companies”. Bro, literally anyone could be using xz, and anyone could be using Red Hat. You’re only “acting against Americans” if you use it against Americans. I don’t know who was behind this, but a perfectly plausible scenario would be the NSA putting the backdoor in with an ostensibly Chinese login and then activating on machines hosted and controlled by people outside of the US.
Focusing on a specific distro is myopic. Red Hat is popular.
> but a perfectly plausible scenario would be the NSA putting the backdoor in with an ostensibly Chinese login and then activating on machines hosted and controlled by people outside of the US.
There's a term for that: NOBUS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOBUS). It won't surprise me at all if this backdoor can only be exploited if the attacker has the private key corresponding to a public key contained in the injected code. It also won't surprise me if this private key ends up being stolen by someone else, and used against its original owner.
The HN crowd has come a long way from practically hero-worshipping Snowden to automatically assuming that 'state actor' must mean the countries marked evil by the US.
So if it's not such a huge barrier for a foreign programmer to program in an English-centric computer programming language, surely the same can be said about non-Arabic speakers who might want, or have to deal with this language?
The problem is not so much non-Arabic speakers having difficulty dealing with the language, since they're not really the target audience. But if an Arabic speaker tries to use this language to write a program for some specific use case they have, they'll have to work around the complete lack of ecosystem that comes with a novel language in a tiny niche.
It's the same reason why Chinese developers haven't banded together to create a Chinese-based language. They still code in Chinese, but the languages and libraries they use are mainstream: C++, Java, Python, ... All of these languages support arbitrary Unicode in comments and Java and Python also support Unicode identifiers. As a result, Chinese documentation is available even for software that's otherwise in English. However, if you tried to convince Chinese developers to abandon their battle-tested languages with a rich ecosystem for some other language just so they can use different keywords, you'd get laughed out of the room. It's not solving a problem they have.
That doesn't mean that localized programming languages can't be useful e.g. in education. But translating documentation and libraries is useful for many more people than translating the syntax of a language.
Yes. Any new programming language needs to offer something more than just different syntax if it wants to be used by more than just a handful of people.
As an English speaker with a US keyboard I would have a very hard time with قلب because I'd have to learn how to at least read Arabic and how to type it. In any other language, using say Spanish, using Latin script I at least only have to learn that importar in this Spanish language means include the library. In an Arabic language it'd maybe be استيراد which I'd have to memorize the whole word AND how to type it, which on my keyboard would be changing the layout and buying a sticker set. [1]
[0] Disclaimer all the Spanish/Arabic/etc words were pulled directly from google translate.
[1] Though Arabic is particularly rough because the shape of the letters change based on the letters around it so you have to learn that too! See: http://www.arabion.net/lesson2.html
I understand as an native English speaker I'm in a fortunate position that by a combination of history and random chance computer development happened largely in my language. But given about 70% of the world uses Latin script keeping languages largely based in the English language the majority of the world is able to use their native script at least which is one less hurdle to learning to program.
What I think may be more useful for bringing more people into programming in their native language would be thinking about providing transliterations where, for example, the Python keywords are translated into Arabic. Doing that Arabic speakers could write in their own language and English speakers could run a utility that maps from the Arabic keywords to the current standard English keywords. Stuff like variable names gets a little tricky there I'll admit, not sure how to handle them, maybe Romanize them too?
While this is true as far as it goes, there's a difference in cost/reward tradeoff in having to understand the Latin alphabet to be able to read materially all programming languages, and having to understand many different alphabets to do so.
The surreals are actually a problem in this context. As far as I'm aware, nobody's yet come up with a satisfying integral calculus that works in the surreal numbers generally.
I'd like to see whether there's a correlation here between gender imbalance in the particular subject and the marriage rate. I suspect theology is a heavily male-dominated subject, since a large number of the associated careers are either formally male-only or traditionally male-dominated.
I'm wondering if this might be a case where the men outnumber women so much that a high proportion of the women in the field can easily find suitable men to pair off with without going further than their college.
Checking whether other male-dominated subjects have similarly high intra-major marriage rates would test this(I don't know what they are, offhand, but I suspect a lot of STEM subjects might be there), and also doing the gender-reversed study (where it goes by the first marriage of the husband) might get similar results with more female-heavy subjects.
I don't know if it is male dominated, Missionary activity increasingly is dominated by single women, and while pastors and leadership are often male, the entire parachurch and support aspect is probably female dominated.
Religion in the west for the most part is intensely driven by the needs of women, and men for the most part take a figurehead role as leader, while being conspicuously absent from the rank and file. You can look at Christian culture overall to see this, everything from Christian bookstores to Christian movies is overwhelmingly targeted to women, who make up the majority of the market.
If anything my bet is the competition for men is fierce, and ministry tends to be something many women choose instead.
I can't seem to find any hard numbers at the moment, but I believe that the gender ratio for theology is fairly close to even (or, at least quite a bit closer than engineering or other male-dominated disciplines).
Keep in mind that, while there are variations among the individual majors, but in general women tend to be over-represented in the humanities. Also, relatively few humanities majors actually end up working in a discipline that requires their major.
Unless graduates suddenly have their genders reassigned to balance the ratio in their field, this is still relevant. It's not a coincidence that male-dominated fields draw workers from male-dominated majors.
It seems to fit my impression too. But it feels like for STEM this would apply to women.
Most of my girl colleagues from college are married to classmates or other engineers.
For men, they usually are married with women from other areas.
It's not as if there aren't meme-heavy right-wing subreddits who do something similar. r/the_donald was all over the front page for a long while, and has a notoriously strict moderation policy. It's just that the right wing subs just don't happen to be as popular right now - or they get banned for lack of moderation and for having their members advocating extreme violence (like r/physicalremoval).
latestagecapitalism's output is relatively tame, and given that they have a politically contentious subject matter, heavy moderation is necessary in order to keep the subreddit free of people from any part of the spectrum who'd turn it into a monkey-flinging shitfest.
Also, it's nowhere near the front page today; it's nothing on what r/The_Donald used to be like.
Reddit has special code to discriminate against /r/The_Donald. Without that special code, /r/The_Donald would still be all over the front page.
Sometimes the truth leaks out, for example in the interface that advertisers use. The number of subscribers listed there was over 6 million, far in excess of what a normal reddit user would see. In various ways, inconsistencies reveal that all the numbers are being manipulated to suppress /r/The_Donald.
Wrong. TD is made up from both genders and many races who are conservatives and support the president. Its style is glossy trolly. They are anti political correctness, against sjws and groups that oppose others free speech. Reddit has site wide rules against racism, and those subs that don't remove it are banned. TD mods remove anything racist quickly - almost exclusively posted by few day old accounts .
Also, have a nice day.
Not so much the themes but the game interface. SS1's interface predates a lot of modern FPS idioms, so it feels very clunky and difficult to use compared to more modern games.
Thematically, it fights right in with the Bioshock/Prey/Thief/Deus Ex lineage - all of them exploring the theme of megalomania in one way or another.
There is no such thing as asking for a lawyer prematurely. Cops are allowed to lie , mislead anyone they want basically. Always make sure someone unaffiliated with law enforcement is around as a witness because they will lie for each other.
Demanding a lawyer, and refusing to answer questions, explicitly should not make you look like a suspect in the eyes of the law.
(The eyes of the investigating officer may be different, but they must follow the law in the end.)
Uh, the TV licence covers people who watch live TV broadcasts in the UK (including watching the internet simulcast of said broadcasts and using the BBC's iPlayer catchup service).
If your household isn't doing any of that, you don't need a TV license. The license is basically a tax on watching TV that funds the BBC. What more explanation do you need?
Of course the multitool is the single point of failure. If the chef isn't careful, that one great knife can be the vector that means ALL the customers get salmonella, not just the ones who ordered the chicken!
You say that as if members of US government agencies didn't plot terror attacks on Americans (Operation Northwood), steal the medical records of American whistleblowers (Ellsberg), had to be prevented from assassinating American journalists (Gordon Liddy, on Jack Anderson), collude to assassinate American political activists (Fred Hampton), spy on presidential candidates (Watergate), sell weapons to countries who'd allegedly supported groups who'd launched suicide bombing attacks on American soldiers (Iran-Contra), allow drug smugglers to flood the USA with cocaine so that they could supply illegal guns to terrorists abroad on their return trip (Iran-Contra again) and get caught conducting illegal mass-surveillance on American people as a whole (Snowden). Among others.
It's super-naive to suggest that government agencies wouldn't act against the interest of American citizens and companies because there might be consequences if they were caught. Most of the instances above actually were instances where the perpetrators did get caught, which is why we know about them.