> It replaces approximately 160,000 lines of C++ with 85,000 lines of Rust
Wow! This is great, especially considering how bad and complex (in the bad sense) C++ is. Maybe Rust and Go will finally make the Frankenstein go to sleep
One of the biggest contributors is "custom derive," which cuts out a lot of boilerplate. Another is that Gecko C++ is also pretty old and so doesn't rely on a lot of what is now standard. It's also just a ground-up rewrite, which has the advantage of hindsight.
There's no free speech if you want to ban "hate speech" or "trolling".
This more or less means removing all challenging opinions and basically focus on being an echo chamber even more so than reddit. Basically thought-crime policing
How is preventing racism and slurs a thought crime policing? You're free to think all the dehumanizations of all the demographics you like. Many sites are available for you to even express them. You just are not allowed to do it at imzy. No different than say, not shouting slurs at black people in a cafe. That's not a thought crime issue, that's a "stop pushing out demographics out" issue.
While I understand it is tricky to properly moderate a forum without stifling dissenting opinions, it isn't impossible. You can censor clear, vulgar, abuse while not censoring challenging opinions.
Trolling, name calling, and abuse are NOT "challenging opinions", and removing them does not stifle discourse. There is no opinion that can't be expressed in a way that doesn't resort to abuse.
I think it can be easy to differentiate name calling and trolling from actual discourse. I say this, based on past participation in a local political forum that did allow a wide variety of viewpoints... including viewpoints that were banned on the forum that spawned us.
It seems to me that many sites who have censored particular viewpoints point to hate speech and trolling inappropriately. It also seems like people here do not have high expectations for Imzy, in this way.
I have more or less given up on online political forums, and these issues seem to come up less for hobby/tech topics.
> This more or less means removing all challenging opinions and basically focus on being an echo chamber even more so than reddit. Basically thought-crime policing
If you think left groups never disagree with each other, you're sadly misinformed. Left wing groups are famous for splitting over disagreements. Don't you remember the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea?
Just look at what's happening in Mozambique or SA, it's a real genocide in the works but nobody gives a damn.
People have enough of anti-white propaganda and leeching of them while at the same time spitting in their face.
Which countries treat their minorities better than white ones? Which countries push the most for equality of gays, women, etc.? Which countries spearheaded abolishing slavery?
Most of the leftist should go on a tour to Arab, Asian or Black countries and see how they treat the white minority, they're in for a shock (but probably will try to explain everything by something that happened 300-500 years ago)
Any evidence of this claim? Cause as an outsider to the US I see a black president and a lot of reversed-racism (affirmite action I think you ppl call it)
After the whole year of Clinton propaganda the Clinton News Network is a joke to me, it's basically NK tier "news" (propaganda).
Besides that what You said is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Please give me some scientific articles (there should be a plethora of them considering how hot this topic is) with actuall statistics and measurments that would support this claim.
In my opinion this is a victim complex (similar to the Jews and Holocaust) where people want to milk historical events for their own personal gains
> Mind, since ~70% of the US population is white, that does imply whites are less likely to be killed by the police.
The thing is most violent crime is commited by blacks even though they are about 13% of the population.
So please don't act like evil cops just hunt them down for fun, that's the biggest gripe with BLM. They act like it's 1900 when that's just BS
The thing is the statistics show the blacks should address themselvs cause the biggest contributor to black deaths are other blacks.
But as with everything evil whitey is at fault
Hi. I live in a historically black neighborhood. There are countless community demonstrations against violence, marches, charity barbecues etc. Think about maybe why you don't see those on the news and why Breitbart et al. tend to focus on just the violent aspects and not the actual community building that happens.
Buzzfeed? Like seriously? Next should be CNN with their 'technical problems'.
Does someone there really think this kind of propaganda piece will make anything in the Podesta e-mails less real? Can you get anymore obvious?
This is some Soviet-level shit
FWIW, the author wrote critically of Assange and Israel Shami in 2011 [0], so it's not as if he's changing his mind in order to support the Clinton regime.
That said, nothing wrong with pointing out that it's an unfair attack now as it may have been in 2011. (I didn't know Ball has written about Assange extensively until googling it after reading the BuzzFeed piece).
Since it's a piece by someone who has a personal dispute with Assange, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think its most interesting contribution at this time is its argument that Assange, for better or worse, hasn't changed, it's the world.
Every single person who works with Assange ends up having a personal dispute with him. The old saying is still true - "if you think everyone's an asshole, chances are it's just you".
Wikileaks collaborators and repeatedly walked away on bad terms. At this point I'd be curious to know if there's anyone who actually gets along with him.
I can't wrap my mind around why people are so concerned about whether he's an easy guy to get along with or not. If you don't have to work him personally, why do you care? Surely you can hear his message and separate that from his personal character?
It goes far beyond just being easy to get along with. He actually seemed pretty nice when I met him in 2005. But this is about demanding blind disobedience, accepting his authority, not tolerating any criticism (or advice), and apparently even using psychological pressure to force people to sign an NDA.
I suspect that the people who left Wikileaks did and still do agree with the original cause, but not with the cult of personality that Assange seems to have created around it.
Ok, that is good criticism but all that says is that his methods are probably not as effective for obtaining his goals as they could be. Doesn't detract from A) the goals that he's aiming for and B) the goals that he's already achieved.
The goals he's currently aiming for seem different from the ones he used to have. I support their original goals, and they've done some good stuff, but these days Wikileaks seems to be entirely about Assange, his cult of personality, and his vendetta with everybody he imagines is after him.
The head of the DNC (and Hillary's former campaign manager) giving debate questions to the Clinton campaign is truly outrageous, and it is only the media's extreme hate for Trump that is keeping this from getting more attention. But I agree with your point that it is not damaging her.
The media's extreme hate for Trump? They used to love him. He was, and still is, great for ratings. And his free media attention is a big part of why he won the primaries. But he keeps saying increasingly shocking, vile and dangerous things, and it's the people working for the media, as well as everybody else (even people from his own party) who are getting extremely disgusted with him.
Don't paint this as if it's just the media. It's Trump.
People were distracted by the pussy thing - which was not coincidentally released on the same day.
Most people have no idea what was even in those emails and most of the media I read made a point to say that there was nothing damaging in there (cherry picking the most mundane things they could).
There wasn't anything too surprising to people who hate Hillary Clinton (yes, she's in the pocket of wall street) and supporters and most of the mainstream media (MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, etc.) didn't pay any attention.
I read a bunch of the emails and there wasn't anything significant in there unless you count cherry-picking quotes and willful misunderstanding. At best there are some ambiguous things that could be interpreted certain ways.
tl;dr: There is no smoking gun. People say things in private emails they wouldn't discuss in public, NEWS AT 11!!!!!
P.S. It wasn't "that pussy thing". It was Trump bragging that he pushes women into sexual encounters he knows they don't want and gets away with it because he's famous and rich. I like how the right pretended everyone was upset about some foul language though or that it was just "locker room" talk. If Trump had said "oh she's so hot, I'd love to fuck her" no one would have cared because that is locker room talk. What Trump said was in a different league.
If it was so basic, why did the head of the party email the campaign the exact question? She must have thought it was important, otherwise why put your career on the line
* She admitted to having a "private" (real) policy position and a "public" one (lies).
* Bits of her speeches to Goldman came out and she basically said "we were way too hard on you guys" and "we need to listen more to you guys to help prevent another crisis".
* She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone.
Of course, apparently it's not the done thing these days to talk about policy scandals that actually affect us during a Presidential election.
How is the first one a smoking gun? She was quoting someone else. Lincoln, I think.
Her ties to Wallstreet are hardly a surprise. It sucks, but we already knew that she's probably not going to do what needs to be done to Wallstreet. But there's no reason to believe that Trump is going to do any better, and on almost everything else, Clinton is still a lot better, or at worst less bad.
I think she's more alluding to something like the EU common market. NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP and TTIP don't do anything about freedom of movement, and do a lot about a ton of other things that have nothing to do with that.
The pussygate tape came out before the Wikileak emails [1] which argues, if you're rational, that the timing was co-incidental or, if you're conspiratorial, that the Clinton campaign had a mole inside of Wikileaks who had just enough access to make them aware of the leak but not enough to stop it.
Sweden and the rest of European economies built their wealth on typical capitalism.
And I've checked out Sweden, after you've gone into its current situation it ain't so great as communists like Sanders make it to be
I'm actually from Poland, a country that had actual communism created by another rich jew that wanted to help "the opressed masses". You think at the beginning any of the commies said straight what they plan to do how it will look like after they're done? And what they will do with the evil burgois (or "the 1%" as Sanders and his cultists name it). You're playing with fire, just be wary.
I watched a bit of that and he just says basically that you had to admit Cuba had built a lot of medical clinics. Which I agree is true. Doesn't make either of us communists.
Wow! This is great, especially considering how bad and complex (in the bad sense) C++ is. Maybe Rust and Go will finally make the Frankenstein go to sleep