No, they are not. That wont stop an enlightened anarchist or antifascist from insisting that they are, and lying about this to as a pretext for their violence.
They do not give all of the code. If you have an object, and don't have everything needed to reproduce the object, then you have not been given the source to the object.
And with BSD licenced code this is their right.
And it's my and anyone else's right to observe all of this and criticize it.
> much worse at producing artifacts that are comprehensible to humans
This has always been the case. Just try making sense of the output of any assembler/compiler/transpiler. Why do we think differently about generated source code?
by focusing your question on "what is China doing?" you're already buying in to the framing that this propaganda is pushing - that Chinese people are sneaky and deceitful and we should be worried about what they're doing because obviously they must be doing something aimed at fucking with the US.
I actually think the US hard two party system isn't purely due to first-past-the-post, it is actually due to four interacting factors: (1) first-past-the-post; (2) presidentialism; (3) a deeply-entrenched primary system; (4) cultural homogeneity
Point (4) will likely strike many Americans as dubious, but the US doesn't have anything comparable to Québec – there is presently no US state where English isn't the majority language; nor anything comparable to Scotland or Northern Ireland (no state where a significant percentage of its population identify with a competing national identity). So, no matter how much (undeniable) diversity the US has, in the sense that counts for this purpose, it doesn't.
Hence: while abolishing first-past-the-post would no doubt do a lot to break the US hard two-party system, it could also be broken while retaining it if something happened to (2) or (3) or (4) instead.
But, in US politics, changing (2) or (3) is even more politically fringe than changing (1) is. Maybe that might change at some point though, who knows what the future holds.
And (4) will likely eventually cease to be true, but only in the long-run in which we are all already long-dead.
Yes, I used AI for a lot of it. What doesn't work for you? I also have Firefox on Linux. You need to press space to play the chart. There is a controls button.
> The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders
I think you don't understand what this phrase means. In a publicly-traded company, "the interest of the shareholders" does not mean "whatever the shareholders want"; it means "whatever is best for the company." That means money.
It may be possible to be both profitable and moral; but if it isn't, the fiduciary duty obligates corporate officers to choose the profitable path rather than the moral one.
The easy way of looking at this is that there beyond complying with the law, there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably. So it's not hard to see why they make they choices they do.
> It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company.
It is, but it's a lot easier to be not sustainable and not moral.
iOS has never worked the way you are describing. It's easy to disprove your claim that the app is killed by just switching between different apps you have open. iOS keeps the apps open to make it fast to switch back to them.
>I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in.
They're not at all fully interchangeable, just many Americans have a poor grasp of the English language.
That’s not a useful definition in a democracy. Who gets to define what’s justified if not the duly elected legislature? I bet if you put the current Texas law on the ballot today you’d get the same answer.
As someone who is just now learning about burning man, it reminded me a lot of Fight Club (1999). And it turns out the author belonged to some of the clubs behind it, namely Cacophony Society/Suicide Club.
There seems to be a bunch of rules to the event, like the explicit 10 rules of chaos mentioned in the article, but also more implicit rules like "a wooden man must burn".
Fwiw, in the book/movie, the drift of the original spirit of the movement is a central theme, as is the loss of personal control over the evolving movement.
Why should this be such a bad anti pattern? Sure, a function might not need to work on the entire data model, but with pass by reference, does it matter that much? I dont see big negatives by using struct args, possibly wrapped in some typestate.
On the other hand, doesnt seprating args and typestate defeat the purpose? Since they can now be constructed separately.
How do you effectively steelman against your own position without a dynamic “adversary” responding to counter-claims? I feel like every static argument except the most absolutely resolute is vulnerable.
Perhaps I’m close to the end of my lifecyles. Meditative bliss feels more intense than sense pleasures for me, sense pleasures feel dull in comparison regardless of my sensitivity.
