urshanabi [he/they]

Hi, I don’t really code besides computation stuff in Python. You seem to be really knowledgeable, could I ask, what does the future of the web look like? Is it Rust and WASM? Or will JS and TS always have a place even a decade from now?

what was the difference for those of us who dont know, like andrew over here 😂

basic windows… does that entail windows N by any chance?

Yeah, I like it quite a bit. I wanted to have 3D models of stuff I designed what could be interacted with and I think the capability to integrate existing libraries is there but it’s beyond my skill atm.

The blogging part is neat, I’m a big fan and the nature integration with R Shiny and R Shiny for Python is great.

When you stream stuff in the background, is it usually people playing games or is it sometimes like the linked content where the streamer is talking?

Christ, this makes me sick.

When I was younger, I’d save my lunch money for weeks to buy a game and fast during school. I’d do my best to fill my stomach with as much water as I could.

I don’t think this is true. The commonly cited reference is James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10, I’ll provide the relevant excerpt and a Wikipedia link, though I’ll urge caution as they aren’t authoritative sources by any means. Bolding is mine.

Preamble

Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9 and is titled “The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”. The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Historians such as Charles A. Beard argue that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism.

Cherry-picked quote cited by Garry Wills

Garry Wills is a noted critic of Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 10. In his book Explaining America, he adopts the position of Robert Dahl in arguing that Madison’s framework does not necessarily enhance the protections of minorities or ensure the common good. Instead, Wills claims: “Minorities can make use of dispersed and staggered governmental machinery to clog, delay, slow down, hamper, and obstruct the majority. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such”.

EDIT: Here’s where I first heard of the argument that the US is not a democracy (in the sense it’s thought of by everyday use, as opposed to the Greek which involves the concept of demos. He’s a Marxist, thought it might be relevant and wouldn’t want to waste your time only to figure it out later.

EDIT EDIT: I didn’t even make my point, whoops. I think the founding fathers were not unaware of the current state of affairs of the electoral college being probsble, rather it was included by design.

Could you give more specific examples? I don’t deny your experience, it’s a bit difficult to try and understand without additional context. Without it, I and other commenters are probably shooting in the dark. The explanations we give might be too general to be useful or satisfactory, or too specific wherein they miss the mark completely for you.

When each man has to deal with the consequences of the societal issues, what other short term option is available though?

Question for the folks in here, are there any inexpensive SBCs with USB-C that can do data and power under ~80 USD? I’ve seen I think the Orange Pi 5 and a few others but I’m not sure what the track record on support is.

This is a strange interpretation of how theories and generally science works in practice. If the aforementioned poster is doing their best to discredit an existing theory the information from that is implicitly involved in any subsequent theory with greater explanatory power or predictive ability.

It was known a bit after Newton’s theories and prior to Einstein’s Relativity that Newtonian Mechanics could not account for the perihelion precession of mercury. These serve as baselines for new theories to predict or explain. Popperian Falsification is one school of thought in philosophy of science more or less predicated on the idea you cannot ever prove a theory, only disprove them. An important criteria then is to allow for testable hypothesis with clear fail states. There have been other developments and more fruitful ways of looking at how science works in practice but if we stick with this then no theory can be proven, we only work with whatever theory is most amenable according to some criteria.

Theories already exist, it’s inevitable that they will be used to explain phenomena, someone engaged in introducing auxiliary hypotheses and theories to explain away or contend with the core of their theory is not ‘doing the opposite’. Rather it might be useful to think that a lack of evidence of something means it is not worthy of consideration among the litany of hypotheses, only certain evidence of something not occurring would be good enough to completely abandon a hypothesis. As that is significantly more difficult and the extent of evidence required great, one can avoid all this by accepting that all theories are wrong and some are seemingly wronger than others and it isn’t necessary to completely abandon them. Instead they can be kept in a provisional space with other theories which are less productive or fruitful until they may be called upon.