I can understand why government scientists wouldn't want their name attached if it was discovered that they funded research on the escaped virus. It's less obvious to me why the CIA would care though. Just trying to avoid general blame attributed to the USA?
I couldn't get through the first season. The Empire stuff was good, but I thought they really butchered Seldon. In the show, Seldon is portrayed as a warrior with a mystical connection to the vault. In the book, the whole point of Seldon is that he's a regular but smart person who leverages his opponents' beliefs in mysticism against them.
Season 2 has more seldon but is pretty awesome. You just have to let go of the books and let the show stand on its own otherwise some of the stuff will bother you especially until the shows additions changes and explanations make the thing that you saw seem reasonable.
> he has had a commendable commitment to free speech
Reddit does not have a good track record of supporting free speech outside its zeitgeist. In the past, it has banned subreddits that were politically conservative, not toeing the party line on transgenderism, or hosting pandemic skepticism / conspiracies. The bans were usually executed in the name of stopping threats or "hate speech", but to my eye, the rules and punishments were applied unevenly.
I'm not very sympathetic to crying about loss of free speech from people who do not protect free speech themselves.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ban people from r/conservative for not toeing the party line and then complain about that same behavior being applied to themselves?
I considered those actions to be protective of free speech rather than in violation of it.
Parent commenter is talking about (banned) conservative subs, not r/conservative specifically.
And yes there is a difference, there was a "Never Trump" movement led by conservatives which obviously wouldn't have been popular on places like r/the_donald. It's not a giant monolithic block.
That’s because driving throws out all the externalities outside the window: pollution, noise, violence, the cost of roads, cutting cities with hostile canyons…
Saying driving is better is like saying littering is more convenient than picking up your trash.
That's usually the final straw people will put up with a decent amount but once they realize how much time they're spending - bam.
And part of the problem is that the only real way to get competitive fair box recovery (which shouldn't really be a goal, imo) is to pack the vehicles to standing-room only, which makes it hard to read a book or do something else.
On occasion that sounds nice. But usually I'd rather get somewhere faster than spending a lot more time in transit. And you can listen to music and podcasts while driving.
Only when you feel safe. I use public transport in Asia and do the listed things, but I wouldn't do that in NYC because I might get pickpocketed, for instance.
I disagree. I lived in NYC for 10 years without a car and used public transit for everything. There are plenty of passengers, and that didn't matter. It was just a larger captive audience for whoever was having their mental breakdown.
The US's approach attacks public transit from both ends. Transit is gutted, cars are prioritized, making transit not good enough. And social services are gutted, the poor and the unwell are demonized, and then the only people riding transit are scary. And these two feed into each other; by making transit inefficient to use, and making expensive cars necessary, poverty is increased.
You want to have a more holistic view of living together. Public healthcare is part of that.
Whether people in crisis are on the side of the road (and easier to ignore with a lifted car hood) or in your train car, they aren’t getting the help they need.
I had a similar experience in NYC circa 2019. Several weeks before the scheduled stay, the host wrote that we should lie if anyone asked us about the situation. I was not okay with that and canceled the reservation. Despite the sketchiness, Airbnb refused to refund any of the prepayment.
Might have to do the same. Been ok with paying slightly higher prices for reliability but I wouln't bet on the latter if they start pulling shit like this even if it doesn't affect me directly.
Laremere is correct in that there is no "magic" built-in understanding of iterators in the language, i.e. under the hood calling a `.next()` method, without explicitly having to call it. That _would_ violate the no hidden flow control maxim.
However, as Jayschwa points out, Zig's `while` loop will bind the result of its expression (in its own block scope) if it is non-null and otherwise exit the loop. This gives you essentially the same as a for loop that has some language-level knowledge of the iterator pattern, except there is no hidden flow control (I have to explicitly call `next`).
And indeed the Zig standard library is replete with iterators (and in most of the Zig code I write I will will write iterators for my own collections). For example, `mem.split` returns an iterator:
var it = mem.split(...);
// it.next() returns null after we run out of
// split text and the while loop exits
while (it.next()) |substr| {
// In here we have a non-nil substr
}
> Plus I imagine it's a lot easier for the compiler to perform optimizations this way.
That's an interesting point: does Zig miss out on some optimisation possibilities with iterators given they are not a language-level construct? I don't know.
I didn't finish the TV show (I got maybe halfway through), but my main problem was the changes to Hardin. In the book, Hardin is a shrewd politician, and there's nothing magical or blessed about him. He "defeats" Anacreon by exploiting their own dim beliefs in magic against them. In the TV show, Hardin is a warrior with a special "magical" connection to the Vault. That conveys a very different, almost contradictory message compared to the book.
