They thought about backward compatibility, and offer an alternative syntax that use no keyword for library that want to activate it yet stay compact with old version. It's already in the spec.
We heard that about types, the walrus, asyncio, dataclasses and so much more. But it didn't happen, if people don't need something (and many don't know it exists or what it does), it's unlikely they use it.
In fact, half of the community basically uses only a modernized set of python 2.4 features and that's one of the beauties of the language. You don't need a lot to be productive, and if you want more, you can optionally reach for it.
It has worked very well for the last 2 decades and it will likely work again.
People said the same about Perl and its “there’s more than one way to do things” ethos, which gained much criticism.
Same is true for C++.
In this specific case, I think a lazy load directive isn’t a bad addition. But one does need to be careful about adding new language features just because you have an active community.
Perhaps people won't use it. But I for one want it to be used, and I will certainly be using it in my own code if the PEP is accepted. Startup time is very important to me, more important than the cost of making the code noisier. I just wish I didn't have to make that tradeoff in the first place.
Their company already don't produce much in France, it's all imported. They are paying minimal taxes already on what they produce and sell outside of France. And they don't pay taxes personally. So what would we lose if they leave?
For the things that are actually made in France, it's because they have to. They would have moved it already otherwise. So it's physical assets and people that can't be moved or sourced elsewhere. So what they have to produce there, they will still do. Their real estate, their logistic chain vehicles, and their local workshops will stay here. Even if they would sell part of it in fact, the actual physical stuff would stay here.
And what they sell here, they will still do: they are not going to exit the French market just because they can't be physically here so it's not going to affect the economy that much. What, less jet and luxury hotels revenue? It's ok.
And of course, we can increase taxes on their companies so that they get less revenue to compensate for their exile. We tax trading or exporting French-based company stocks so that they can't move that around without paying first.
Besides, once a stock is bought from the IPO, moving it from hand to hand is not investing more money into the company in any way. It's not going back into the economy.
They can move with their bank accounts and bonds, why do we care? It's not something that goes into our economy. They made sure of it.
No but him and his crowd have been keen on denying reality on a daily basis, and it's scary how well it works. I have people around me who drink this BS, and will argue in support for it because the arguments against it requires nuance thinking. At least, with a paper, it's harder to do this. You have to admit he pretended the sky was red, when it's obviously blue. There is less nuances if you get something clear in writing.
It's not much, but it's better than the alternative.
- The invasion of Iraq while lying about WMD and against the UN vote, eroded international trust.
- The Patriot act was supposed to be temporary be was extended again and again.
- We got the reveal of mass spying by Snowden.
And... nothing. Obama didn't do anything about the wars, mass spying, or the patriot act. He was an elegant break from the dumbness, but didn't stop the elevator to keep climbing after him, just paused it for a few years.
All of it was just stepping stones after stepping stones.
It's not a one-time aberration; it's a sign of the times.
It's not the message anybody wants to hear, but until the other party makes a clear and irrevocable promise to cancel the tariffs / walk back the tantrum diplomacy if they return to office, I am willing to believe they might not. If the emotional chords being struck by the tough guy act are so positive that they're counterbalancing the negatives from reality, then it is as likely to be imitated as reversed.
The Democrats don't know what they are after the election, and they might even still win the next one just through the power of doing nothing and watching the current administration flush the country down the toilet, so I have no faith that they feel the need to distance themselves from tariffs or what other boneheaded policies have been passed. They'd only do it if they had to to win an election. They'd never do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The Democratic party is just plain screwed. They lose supporters if they give plans, they lose supporters if they don't give plans; they lose supporters if they compromise, or if they stand form; they lose supporters if they're dogmatic, or if they're pragmatic; they lose supporters if they run a man, or if they run a woman, or a white person, or a colored person. Even when they do everything right, they lose supporters because their economic plan is "too complicated" or "uninspiring".
Meanwhile, the Republican party is an outright lifestyle now. Policy does not matter. Ideology barely matters insomuch as you can sell the charade under the guise of "strongman good". Consistency need not apply.
As a quick example: The sitting president ran on exposing the child sex trafficking ring of Epstein. It was one of their biggest rallies. Once elected, he ordered the FBI to destroy records with his name. Then he coordinated with numerous cronies who are not only denying his involvement now, but attempting to say it did not exist at all.
And their party just... Does it. The conversation is dead. The talking heads say how rediculous it all sounds and how glorious leader cannot be questioned. And the voters pretend they have no idea what you mean when you point out the change.
They live in a warped reality. Though I won't pretend the GOP has not long been the party of pedophiles, electing convicted or highly suspected officials to legislation repeatedly.
Meanwhile the Democrats must be absolutely perfect. Every tiny mistep, every perceived half-measure or improper leads to entire sects of their base boycotting them. See the last election with Israel/Palestine - how well boycotting the Democrats worked for both us and them.
On Israel/Palestine issue, it was not a "tiny misstep". I will remember Joe Biden as "Genocide Joe" for the rest of my life. My perception (naively) of both parties has changed, but I don't trust Democrats anymore because of this issue. They are all the same..
I just now remember Joe Biden openly taking bribes in the office, on camera. I remember his "Joe for Life" jokes as he paraded "Joe Biden 2028" hats. I remember his attempted coup on January 6th. I remember him deploying the military on domestic soil against US citizens and proclaiming random tariffs across our allied countries that change on a weekly basis.
I remember him being found civily liable for the rape of a woman. And referred to in multiple court documents on the rape of a 13 year old girl. And in the flight records and friend circle of a child sex trafficker. And that he tried to cover that sex trafficking ring up.
I remember him denying Fox news access to the White House or pentagon. And his administration's overt threats to take news stations off the air or deny them business mergers for not covering him in positive light.
And I definitely and absolutely remember him publishing an AI video on Twitter of a purged, captured Palestine turned into a gaudy gold resort for rich Americans.
How in the world is that whataboutism? You said they were they same, this is a direct retort by enumerating a mere fraction of the enormous list of behaviors enacted by an actual fascist takeover of the US government.
Biden did not handle the Palestine situation appropriately, but the utter audacity to claim the solution is the death of tens of millions of people through the demolition of aid and trade and the total regression of all climate change mitigation and global stability policy by aiding the installment of an outright, self-stated dictator...
I am so utterly tired of this rhetoric. It's like looking at Hitler or Stalin and saying "well... His opponent wasn't Christened by God himself."
Maybe, just maybe, we should aim for "basic decency and operating in the same objective reality to keep the basic tenants of peaceful society operating" before "go to war with a nuclear power over their religious jihad."
Not sure what you are referring to in your last sentence.
Democrats enabled genocide just like Republicans are doing the same now. I don't like or endorse current government and Trump but saying that we should support democrats because they are "decent" and talk in a politically correct way is wrong as well.
What would be the systematic changes to better protect democracy and a functioning civil society? I'm certainly no expert myself but I must imagine there are a lot of literature and experts.
It also helps reading about different countries, their histories and various forms of government and practices.
It's probably hard to go from dictatorship and totalitarianism to strong judicial systems and democracy. Instead you get a line of successive different dictators.
Run away if you can is the only practical, actionable thing one can do at this stage. And few people can actually do it.
I have, myself, rejected all mission offers to the US since January, but I have the luxury of not living there.
From the other side of the pond, the US future looks very grim, and I have no knowledge at my disposal that lets me see a path toward reversion that doesn't go through a violent phase.
It's a systemic problem; the POTUS is a symptom. And I don't see how such a large and complex system is going to get fixed fast enough to prevent something terrible from happening.
After that, it will go back to something more peaceful. But I wouldn't want to be there during the transition.
24 years ago, and someone did act. I see this all as a result of 9/11 and Bin Laden & company giving the US just what it needed to end up authoritarian. Effectively he won that day and managed to damage the USA in ways that it did not have a mechanism to effectively deal with. As a result the USA has made one own goal after another and it does not look like they've decided to stop doing so.
The forces that created today, are deeper - to the point that they used 9/11, as opposed to being defined by 9/11.
The crux of the issue today is fundament information economy on the right, that can support any narrative, even if it contradicts anything that came was said before, or has no basis in reality.
Trump has a 92% approval rating amongst republicans from a recent Fox poll. Other polls have him at 80%+.
It is a party truly running on faith, and had no need to traffic in facts.
This is the fountainhead of all the power that allows the situation to continue.
I’ve been looking at this and have stopped talking to friends in the US, because my urge is to tell them to GTFO.
And I feel like I’m going to sound crazy to them.
But the thing I keep remembering is a conversation with a student in the UK, post Brexit, but while they were figuring out how to do execute.
They were so earnest and hopeful, that the country would find a way through. So much so, that even with a background in finance and macroeconomics, I felt that maybe they would thread the needle.
I don’t see a path to the midterms, forget anything beyond that - and it seems so extreme to state, that I am quiet.
> And I feel like I’m going to sound crazy to them.
I'd talk anyway.
Even just hearing what it looks like from the outside may help, even help those who don't leave, even those who may have voted for Trump.
I don't know what will happen. An incompetent dictator may be stopped before becoming a dictator, or be easily overthrown, but if they cement their power… then my reference point is Pol Pot.
Kicking out all the undocumented migrants and finding local political undesirables to force onto the same farms feels very plausible, and will lead to famine.
Some people argue turbo-capitalism is inherently unstable and will lead to fascism. A systemic problem id like to see more discourse about, or what is the systemic problem you meant?
There is massive difference between Obama and Trump. Between project 2025, MAGA and literally anything Obama. The way Republicans back then acted, refused literally any cooperation and made bad faith putrages ober everything was also something else.
Remember when tan suit was not presidential enough? When saying that Martin Trayon looked like hypothetical Obama son in tepid statement somehow crossed taboo of what preaident can say?
America did not became like it is during Obama and not even Bush. It did lost some trust due to Iraq, sure, it was still not what it is now. But Obama being black did broke conservatives minds.
This was planed long ago with alot of foresight and malignent intent. Trump is only the lucky idiot stumbling on fertile ground and accelerating the process.
You can go as far back as Reagan or maybe even Nixon (although the The Heritage Foundation was born due to some people thinking he was too soft), the bucket does not stop at Bush Jr.
The root cause, or primary driver of the situation today is the exit of the Republican Party and the conservative media/political sphere from bipartisan politics and facts.
These two forces are the ones which rotate the flywheel that powers everything else.
Act in a bipartisan manner? Vote against the party lines ? - get primaried.
Cover something that doesn’t match the prevailing narrative ? Is not of utility to the party ? Be ignored.
Have a narrative that sells and can be used, but is absolutely bonkers or inaccurate? Doesnt matter, it’s going to be used.
This force constantly drove the base further and further right, removed any links to facts or reason at scale.
This in turn supports partisanship at all cost politics, and support for policies that have little to do with complex reality but everything to do with preferred narratives.
Trump has a 92% approval rating amongst republicans from a recent Fox Poll.
You work really really hard to tie conservative project to Obama. No, this is on republicans and conservatives 100%, they worked hard to achieve this and succeeded. The democrats and Obama have their own issues, but them not being saints does not make the above untrue.
I agree it was long term project, it took decades of propaganda and hard work on conservative side. But like, Obama was not part of conservative project nor step toward Project 2025.
Instead of trying to evaluate the argument on its merits:
- There is a long-term systemic problem, POTUS is a symptom.
- Democracy has been at risk for 20 years in the US, starting with the destruction of Habeas Corpus after 9/11, under thunderous applause.
- The opposition has been weak at best, and didn't show its value by attempting to reverse the worse of the trends when they had the chance. So nobody trusted them anymore. They didn't represent something to rally for, only the opposite of what you didn't want.
You attempt to put me in a tribe and judge me on that.
Except... I live in Europe. I don't care about your tribes, I can only see you have a wannabe dictator in place, and that it's the consequence of a long chain of events. It's not an unexpected surprise.
Arguing "that's because of the bad guys" is like falling in the mud and blaming the mud.
> I live in Europe. I don't care about your tribes,
That is irrelevant. Regardless of where you live, your argument amounted to working really hard here to blame republican policies, radicalization and behavior on Obama. You tied together things that were in fact not alike at all.
>I can only see you have a wannabe dictator in place, and that it's the consequence of a long chain of events
And insisting that Obama is in any way relevant to that long chain is either bad faith or just disinterest in what happened.
> Arguing "that's because of the bad guys" is like falling in the mud and blaming the mud.
But it is you who want to make it into that, except that "bad guys" are any random American politician you can think of. It does actually matter who did what.
As another European: Obama didn't make things (much) worse, but he also didn't do anything to really arrest the slide even though he had the opportunity to do so. At the same time: I realize that in many ways his hands were tied but he also simply never tried, when he could have. Similar to how it took him 7 long months to speak up when he really should have spoken up much, much earlier. Right now the whole democratic wing of the US establishment looks like it is along for the ride, rather than that they are fighting tooth and nail to arrest the further descent into madness.
Could he have done more? Sure. But he spent a lot of political capital getting the ACA done. Then he followed traditional political decorum when the GOP pushed him around that in hindsight was a mistake. If all the rules both written and unwritten are going to be thrown out, the obviously it's best for the person who throws them out.
I'm more pissed off at Obama's inaction in the last 7 months than about what he did during his tenure as president. He's still in 'nice guy' mode, we don't need nice guys right now, we need counterweight, and soon.
> I'm more pissed off at Obama's inaction in the last 7 months
This. There’s a deep vacuum of leadership in the Democratic Party. Obama is a widely trusted figure on the progressive side and has nothing to lose by saying plainly what everyone can see. Only Gavin Newsom has demonstrated a willingness to do this. At the Federal level, though, the leadership is MIA. I mean Obama owes no one anything now; but I do wish he would just say what needs to be said.
Again, following traditional decorum where past POTUS's usually stay out of the way for the current. Of course, at this point we all know the traditions are dead, and I agree Obama should be leading wherever he can.
The main argument is "it's been in the mix for 20 years", and part of demonstrating it has been was to state that even the Obama administration didn't do much to stop it, so it kept escalating.
Not only I don't conflate the two, but you make the whole Obama note the center of this discussion, while it was there for the purpose of illustration.
This is how tribe politics work and how the US fell to the best populists instead of trying to tackle society's problems.
I have no interest in discussing with you anymore, since you don't seem interested in talking about ideas, only find an enemy to your tribes.
From the point of view of us Europeans even the IRA was a crisis, so I see what Trump is doing trade-wise as a continuation of a longer US tradition. Biden also continued Trump's decision to keep the WTO's binding resolution mechanisms from functioning.
Don't forget that Obama showed to the whole world what american security assurance actually is, enabled putin and is one of the main reason for 2022 russian invasion. True Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Trump is not an aberration, he just not bothering to hide his actual face.
It’s the same problem today as it was then. It is actually hard if you’re a democracy answerable to your people.
Are you willing to bet even a 1% chance to trade Los Angeles for Vladivostok? Warsaw for St. Petersburg? Because Putin is certainly willing to play chicken. Obama, Biden and (maybe?) even Trump are not.
I wish the western allies would dump their US bonds to drive bond yields into the ground and threaten US budgets, like the military one, that relying on cheap debt.
But this is a difficult decision to make, do you sacrifice possible (less likely) future earnings to destabilize a super power to save it from fascism but in turn risking a power vacuum to your disadvantage?
Id take this gamble but im a mere democratic citizen, that doesnt care about global pro-fascism support, like other right leaning governments do.
>I wish the western allies would dump their US bonds to drive bond yields into the ground
Dumping bonds would increase supply and drive down prices, but that increases yields because yields is the difference between the price you paid vs the face value of the bond.
When US bonds enter the secondary market at a discount, buyers are inclined to prefer them over the US-offerend ones who need to raise interest rates to stay competitve, so making them more expensive for the US.
Bond yield is the return an investor will realize on a bond, so driving down prices decreases yields. Sure, it can increase the absolute value of yield as it heads into the negative...
Undermining the USD doesn't help. Vacuum politics are not better. Vacuum politics lead to where we are today. Too many years of choosing "the least bad option" doesn't lead to a good place.
Let's take all this negative energy and do something better than criticize. Let's harness the energy into good action. What's something we all can agree is good for everybody and start a discussion around that? I'm not saying all crticism is a bad thing. I'd just like to see us all work together to accomplish something good.
I'll try to get the ball rolling, but if somebody has a better ball, I'm happy to go there.
I prefer free trade. I think everybody benefits if we lower trade barriers. But it needs to be "fair". Allowing corporation A to dump hazardous refuse cheaply into the river, but denying the same to corporation B is not fair to B and not all around good. So are there any good ideas about how to allow goods from different jurisdictions to compete by the same rules without Nationalistic interference?
Unfortunately there are all kinds of interdependencies that would make such a move quite risky. But you're right in that that is one way in which the screws can be put on.
