I am surprised that there are more jobs in Windows and .NET at your place. Java platform is more popular than .NET, and your knowledge of JVM is very valuable. I think you are much better off trying for Java/Scala/Clojure jobs.
If only it had a good documentation like that of Arch Linux, i would have given it a try. It seems promising, marriage of simplicity of BSD systems, and configurability and availability of vast number of packages of Linux.
Almost my whole adult life, I looked up to America. Whatever I know and my life's value system is mostly because of the books I read by American authors. I couldn't belive the news when I heard that Americans chose Trump. When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?
We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.
There are three things you can say about the popular vote in the 2016 US Presidential Election:
- the result of the popular vote and the electoral college were not the same
- the popular vote/electoral college split confirms that the country is very split and that Trump does not have a mandate.
- the electoral college may not be the best way to elect the president
What is much harder to argue is that the results of the popular vote would have been the same if the election were based on the popular vote. Both campaigns were run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. The GOTV efforts were similarly run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. Voters themselves to some extent take into account the Electoral College when deciding whether to vote and who to vote for. Many people choose not to vote if they're in a state where their vote may not matter much. Some people trade votes. Some people choose which candidate they vote for (for example, third party candidates) depending on the likelihood of their vote effectiveness.
And all of this needs to take into account how few voters turned out in general. This is nothing new, of course, but it does bear keeping in mind when evaluating statements like "the majority of American voters".
Oh, there's a fourth thing as well:
It's very distracting from other important issues, from both sides. Some (not all) Clinton supporters hold it up as validation that Clinton should have been president. Some (not all) Trump supporters (and Trump himself) view the popular vote important enough to repeat claims that voter fraud is the only reason Trump didn't win the popular vote as well. At this point there are more important issues to focus on. One of which may be the role of the Electoral College.
All of that may be true, but it's still valid to point out the popular vote discrepancy as a response to the claim that the American people chose Trump. As an American voter who opposed Trump during the election, I feel especially entitled to do so in response to someone who criticizes us as being "stupid" for having done something that many of us don't feel responsible for having done. Indeed, if further evidence surfaces of Putin's involvement in the election, I'll feel even more secure in my opinion.
I completely understand where you're coming from. I also know that phrasing it the way you have, without any additional context, very often results in semantic, distracting discussions like those that followed, distracting from the very valid point you're making.
When making a similar point, I focus on how clearly split the country is and the record-low unfavorability of both major party candidates. Hard to argue with either of those, and clearly demonstrates that Trump can't accurately be described as having a mandate. It's also generally non-partisan.
It also reminds everyone that Clinton was by no means a great candidate either, which also is well worth keeping in mind. So much of the rhetoric on either side during the campaign was "how can you vote for that candidate?", pointing out the flaws, rather than extolling the virtues of the candidate one was going to vote for. If Clinton had carried the Electoral College, we wouldn't be discussing this under "Trump Fires Acting Attorney General", but the split and polarization of the country would likely be just as strong, just on different topics.
You say what you've mentioned is a reminder of how Clinton wasn't a great candidate as though that's simply a fact that we must recall. However, I (and, I think, others here) have felt that the main criticisms of her were at worst based in complete falsehoods and at best strongly influenced by an overall public mood which was forged by fake news and demagoguery. The weakness of Clinton's candidacy is not an established fact is is definitely up for debate.
I'm not a political scholar, and would be a terrible politician, so I welcome criticism of these points. I don't think I'm going to be saying anything new, or even complete.
It may be a tautology, but I would like to define a "great candidate" as one who is able to win the position they're running for. One might argue that it's about how qualified you are for the office, and I have a lot of sympathy for that. I want smart, experienced people to represent me. An essential part of being a great candidate is being able to be elected, not only about how well one would perform in office. So my argument is primarily pragmatic.
Hillary ran for the presidency in 2008 and 2016, losing the Democratic nomination to Obama in 2008, and the 2016 election to Trump. In both cases, Hillary's long experience in politics (which one could argue is an essential part of her qualifications as a good candidate) wasn't enough to overcome other charismatic qualities of her opponents. This has been something that's dogged her for as long as I remember her being involved in national politics.
I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the fact that she's a woman has worked against her; I say this not because I think that her being a woman is makes her unfit for office in any way. In the political context of the United States at the time she's run, she needs to be an exceptional candidate to overcome the biases for whom her gender is an issue.
Your points about fake news and demagoguery have some weight. There were way too many distractions during the campaign. That said, an important part of being a great candidate is being able to weather those effectively.
Both Trump and Clinton had record-breaking unfavorable ratings:
You don't get ratings like this as a great candidate.
I don't find these reasons satisfying from the standpoint of "that's how I wish it were". I'm not sure that any of this will be convincing if you believe it comes down to fake news and demagoguery, as you can use those to ultimately excuse any of reasons. Nothing about the entire campaign was satisfying, in my opinion.
Because if some Trump supporters are sophomoric and possible Holocaust deniers, why bother paying attention to what any of them say or claim? They're clearly all halfwit racist degenerates who hate women and the LGBTQ crowd. If the world were rid of them, it would be a much better place.
Right, which is why the American people did not choose Trump. The electoral college did. It's not fair to point the finger at the people when the system was the most likely cause of the outcome.
I think placing blame solely on electoral college system is detracting from the real problem, which is that there is a polarized division. Electoral college can be a fair system most of the time, and I hold benefit of the doubt that there was no systematic gerrymandering going on specifically for this election.
It's impossible to say what the vote count would have been had the rules been different. There are a lot of potential trump voters in very populous states that likely stayed at home.
Here's alternative way to think about this. If you consider the fact that a lot of states are oppressive to their people(minority suppression, anti-choice, anti-environment, etc.) you see that people who can't live under those rules move elsewhere. Often to larger states/cities. The problem with this is that it only sways the electoral college more in the direction of the oppressors. Non-oppressive states get bigger, more inclusive and more open. Oppressive states push a single minded, and often single party, mentality. This essentially locks the power of the electoral college into the hands of the more oppressive states.
In reality it's the opposite that seems to be happening, red states becoming more metropolitan and turning blue. But what we saw with Trump was him winning traditionally blue states. Were those traditionally blue states being oppressive and sending their minorities to California?
You can argue equally well that Clinton won the electoral college except for Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana and South Carolina. That excludes about the same number of people as your argument, and is equally silly.
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the guidelines after we've asked you to stop, including reposting comments that were flagged by the community.
He won by 80,000 votes in 3 states. That's how the EC works. Holding up California, our richest state, as unwelcome is un-american as most of Trump's actions. Why do Trump supporters hate our most successful state yet somehow give free passes to southern hellholes that have little more than dying towns and meth addiction specialists. Its extremely dismissive of millions of votes and the difference between Trump and Clinton is the largest in history for an EC upset. That should worry people. Invalidating 3m voters in any other country would be something the US would criticize. When it happens here its shrugged away with dismissive attitudes by Trump supporters who refuse to see a problem. Of course, if their guy lost the EC and won the popular vote, they'd be singing a different tune.
One of the great accomplishments of the internet age is allowing everyone to have a voice, therefore allowing society to realize that everyone is in fact stupid.
Please stop posting like this—personal attacks are not OK on Hacker News and we've already asked you to stop violating the guidelines. We have to ban accounts that won't post civilly and substantively.
> When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?
Well, in 1996 we re-elected Clinton, despite demonstrable evidence that he was a terrible president and an execrable human being. In 2004 we re-elected Bush, despite him violating his oath to the constitution. In 2012 we re-elected Obama, a man whose mediocrity and incompetence make Carter look like a capable executive (and our other choice was a business executive who couldn't even get a simple get-out-the-vote programme to run correctly).
I know this is an old thread. But, situation has remained the same. Linus is an accomplished hacker, but this kind of language should be clearly unacceptable. Just because someone is accomplished and controls keys to the biggest open source project, does not mean people should discount such behavior calling it the necessary evil or even making excuses for it and justifying it. If we hear someone speak like that to another person, we surely will think that the person is terrible. Then why does Linus get away with it?
I'm a very politically correct person myself, but sometimes I wish I could be encompass a little but of this attitude. The maintainer clearly did a bad job, and instead of admitting it he pointed the finger elsewhere. This reflects terribly on the project and if I was Linus I would be angry too for someone tarnishing the project.
Just playing devil's advocate here. My opinion is neither for / against Linus's approach yet.
Why is the language unacceptable?
He criticizes the work / logic that has been implemented, not the person, albeit in a expletive manner but is that not a method of expressing emotion through email?
Good to know about this alternative. SML was a great language, and deserves to live on. OCaml is not really a successor to SML because of its object-oriented features and its lack of backward compatibility to SML.
Yup, it's one of the simplest distro with a BSD spirit. I know that package dependency handling is considered to go against the simplicity of Slackware, but I think one of the main reasons why Slackware is lagging in popularity is because of the lack of a package manager that handles dependency resolution like Gentoo's emerge or Arch's pacman.
