dmorgan

>Is there a word for market based socialism? You know capitalism with hair cut upside (taxation) and a hard floor protected low side (poverty).

It's what holds in most European countries with a welfare state (and, to a lesser degree even in the US). It has been called various things, from "the third way", to "social democracy".

Though, in Europe (and also in the US), the "free market" guys, neo-liberals and financial interest have reigned supreme since the Thatcher/Reagan era, with the dire results we see today. Kind of like the US economy actually worsened after Clinton, despite him being more "socialist" (to the degree accepted by the american public).

>Why do you think LGBT can't reproduce?

Well, B (and maybe T's) can.

But LG cannot by definition, except if they momentarily act like non LG's by reproducing with other partners against their own sexual preferences.

And that if they _do_ have the will to reproduce, considering that in primates in nature it's a strictly heterosexual deal (and in fact, the male/female sexes were evolved as a means to that very end).

In addition, for several prominent LG thinkers, "gay marriage" and "having a baby" (surrogates, etc), is the losing proposition of adopting/mimicking the dominant paradigm. Essentially it's the opposite of feminism.

>Also without reproduction nobody would be here.

I know that, I was being sarcastic towards the attitude that sees things that formed the bases of society since ever was one, like reproduction, are viewed as "optional" or "sexist" nowadays, because we should be "above that".

Of course we only get to have the privilege of saving that (and still have a human population on the planet) due to overpopulation in other parts of the world, and we still get declining and aging population our own countries for that.

That's also why we get to have our LGBT privilege. In the large scheme of things, a mostly LGBT society would mean a dead society, because of no reproduction.

Well, you would have to deploy serious code for projects with far-reaching financial consequences when things go wrong first...

People also sell buttons.

>This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't.

Put this way, it's even more stupid. It's as if people go about "hating the west" for no reason (or because their "religion tells them so", which is a Glenn Beck level argument).

A thing called colonialism did exist. Some hundred million people were killed in invasions and wars and while fighting for their freedom, and some 2 billion people were living under foreign occupation.

And then you had a thing called post-colonialism, that does exist. With hundreds of interventions and resource-grubbing all over the world. With so called "banana republics" set up. And with countries thousands of miles away of some areas, have the audacity to believe they have "strategic interests" in those areas, and that it gives them the right to intervene, get their resources for cheap, place puppet governments, etc. You know, like some country in the American continent controlling Philippines or killing people in Vietnam.

What sets the Arabs apart is their vast oil riches. Without that, they wouldn't have the money or power to do anything to the West.

Arabs, as in "arab states" could not care less about "doing anything to the west". What sets those people apart is indeed their vast oil riches, that had provoked unprecedented resource-grubbing, puppet government establishment and invasions western powers.

Does anyone imagine what a foreign power invading the US would mean to the US people, and under some BS pretext at that? But invading Iraq under the BS pretext of WMDs, wrecking the country in the process, killing hundreds of thousands, taking control of the oil and leaving them in a state of civil war by playing into the competing tribal and religious interests, is somehow "normal", because they are "arabs".

So, the people there have a lot of reasons to "blame the west". It's not like they have any spectacular resources, either. WWII era guns and ammo, and cheaply made stuff, while the "west" kills them with drones and 21st century military technology.

>The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power.

Actually they had a huge empire, including parts of Europe, even before the crude oil gained relevance.

The west managed to turn them to "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" precisely when it wanted to get ahold of cheap labour and later the crude oil.

>Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people.

No, it's not just that.

Western politically correct liberals, the kind of people that likes to hell-ban dissenting opinions on social issues on HN too, is all for self-censorship on lots of issues, even without involving the "scare of militant Islam".

People also get the equivalent of "hell-banned" from the media, or get fines and prison terms and such for non-PC talk that has nothing to do with muslims. If you count "hate speech" in that, a loosely defined term that can mean anything, it gets even worse.

Yes, because "free speech" is nice and all, but there are some opinions that you should not have, even on a liberal place like Hacker News.

One should not be allowed to divert from popular opinion (be it popular in society in general, in some conservative circle, or merely popular within the hip crowd), even if he is not being trollish and is providing arguments about it.

In issues where most HN people agree, you should not dissent, because we have already reached the absolute enlightenment and correct opinion on things such as "sexism". No need for discussion or argumentation any more on this front, except to agree with each other.

I propose we call those "hell-banning" provoking arguments, "thought crimes".

Which reminds me of the 3rd most popular article on HN today:

"Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony."

Yes, and it's kind of true.

Achievements are only relative.

>I think the latter is a pretty damning point, given that reproducing is pretty important to the human condition.

Not according to 21th century hip ideology. You're insulting all LGBT guys by saying that.

This pedophile over there? He's playing in VERY HARD mode, and yet he made it to a congressman.

See where the analogy breaks down? Playing "hard mode" doesn't mean you're also doing something worthwhile.

>Who's going to write it? How about the writers for The Atlantic, The Nation, The New Republic, The Wilson Quarterly, The Economist, The Paris Review, etc. I could fill up the length of a long-form article with names of publications that have long-form writing.

Aren't those guys already writing for those outlets?

Plus, I don't know much about the others, but the Atlantic went from a high quality outlet I've followed for decades, to a lower quality rag, after Bradley lost most of the stuff in 2005. It's online presence, now, is even more abysmal, for people who value good journalism and the old Atlantic.

>In the creepshots case, the material is produced without the consent of the subjects

You mean like the best photos of every 20th century street photographer, from Cartier Bresson to Gary Winograd?

>Two- Competitive forces will favor companies which support this approach.

Kinda like open source won the desktop? No wait...

>Sounds like you're looking for a Sufficiently Smart Compiler[0]. James Hague has a good piece on why this might not be so desirable[1].

So, sounds like he's looking for something like v8.

if v8 can be 10-30 times faster than Python, for an equal or even more dynamic language, I don't see why Python should need to manual tune the things Guido describes in order to get some speed.

>Yes there is lookup, always lookup. Dynamic language, something in loop could change what lstr is.

And why is that presented as something inevitable?

The interpreter/compiler could analyze that part and see that the function/name is not changed during the loop, and cache for that.

I'd guess that PyPy tries to do it that way, anyway...

>The point of the OP was "patterns for fast python", i.e performance. It's absurd to claim that you "advocate abstractions over performance" in the context of achieving performance, so your comparison doesn't make sense to me. Just because you don't advocate performance doesn't mean that these aren't the ways to achieve performance.

He never said he doesn't advocate performance. He said performance should not be achieved by sacrificing abstractions.

>In addition, it sounds you mostly agree with regard to rewriting in C... use it as a last resort.

In CPython, not necessarily in Guido's advice, it's one of the first and most common things you hear about performance. "Just write parts of it in C".

If that was the advice of the early JVM guys ("just write parts of it in JNI"), we would never have gotten a fast JVM.

>If I'm not in front of my computer, my phone is more useful for getting to the web.

Outside the house maybe.

In the bedroom/sofa/crapper the iPad cannot be beat by the phone or the laptop, though.

What it does is, it frees you from having to be tied to a chair and office in your own house, for browsing, checking your mail and reading stuff.

>LWN seems to be doing fine

So, how do we know they are doing fine? It seems they have a bare bones website with some news. Looking at a sponsors page, I see a single company. I don't see any signs of them making real money.

Do we have any info on their financials?

It's called "The Economist".

So, a not so wild guess would be: the finance industry, and business and policy circles second, that is Washington, Wall Street, Soho and the like guys, with wannabe "sophisticated" money grubbers an influential third.

>It does. Still I think the point of game of life is not to look organic but to make complex thing from very simple rules.

Em, it's called "Game of Life" because the whole point was for it to look and behave _organic (Wikipedia: "Conway was interested in a problem presented in the 1940s by mathematician John von Neumann, who attempted to find a hypothetical machine that could build copies of itself").

Huh? It looks even more complex --organic even.

You don't confuse the fast rate of change in some Conway implementations (which is a detail) with actual complexity.

And what makes you think this "stuck in iPad 1" user base is the target for a paid for tech geek Magazine by Marco?

>If you are good at it, you make money hand-over-fist at the moment.

I don't know of any web news site (that's what we're discussing, we're not talking about the general case of "charging for content on the web", e.g software, music, video, etc) that makes money "hand-over-fist". Quite the opposite.

And the "if you're good at it" is tautological fluff --if you are talking about web news outlets.

If you have problems monetizing a news site with quality content and readers interested in it, then it's proof that "charging for content on the web doesn't work", not that "you're not good at it". In content providing, "good at it" just means: the content is good, and a fair number of readers want to read it.

On the web, this has only worked with ad-supported sites (which means you need to attract many many readers, and thus lower the quality of the copy/make it more generic, to do so) or with vertical, industry specific content for audiences that can afford it (the Economist, for example).

>But on the other hand...I'm really wondering why this needs to be an iOS app. Written content is perfect for publishing on the web, I really don't think you'll be running into any speed issues when you release this as a web magazine.

Speed? No. But you'll run into monetization issues, especially if you don't want to attract the lowest common denominator, and intend on quality articles that get fewer eyeballs (= less ad revenue).

>Introducing The Magazine: a modern iOS Newsstand publication for geeks like us that’s loosely about technology, but also gives tech writers a venue to explore other topics that like-minded geeks might find interesting.

So, also boring stuff about brewing coffee and typefaces?

>See, it's statements like that which annoy women. What do "pleasing aesthetics" have to do with anything? Why do you even need to refer to that when you talk about women?

Because he cares about it. What's YOUR problem?

>Well to plays devil's advocate, the coal miner is working in a coal mine because he did not get a superior education.

Which is heartbreaking in itself, on top of the bloody mine crushing on him.

You say it like this argument somehow makes the Zynga case more heartbreaking, instead of less...

>I never really like these comparison though because why is a ditch digger better or worse than a computer programmer? Both hold basically the same desires. Why should one's misfortune be less important than another? They both work just as hard?

No, they don't. And they don't get the same compensation either. Or job satisfaction -- the ditch digger pretty much works that job because he has to support himself / his family and he doesn't have the means to get something different. The computer programmer could have been 10 other things if he wanted, from tech support to floor manager at a Costco.

Really, try ditch digging for a year, and then we'll talk.

>I think that's easy for you to say. But I bet it really, really hurts for the many folks who genuinely worked their asses off to see Zynga succeed. You put in that kind of effort only to watch your boss get rich while you get screwed?

How is that different from 99% of jobs out there? People flipping burgers work crazy shifts with shitty compensation only to watch the franchise owners getting filthy rich.

>(1) It's not a big deal to move your thumb an inch to tap the screen.

No, but it IS annoying.

"It's not big deal" is defensive. It conveys the opposite message, that it _is_ kind of a deal.