Sure, if that’s your problem with my comment, feel free to rephrase it in your mind to something like "to promote fringe-right and anti-immigration parties and movements that any sane observer recognizes as authoritarian and racist because they’re not even bothering to dogwhistle". If you need a source for that you haven’t been following the news.
This court case has nothing to do with the claim made that US government explicitly stated that they want to promote racists and fringe-right ideology among our allies.
Sure, but it is not the same thing as explicitly promoting racist and fringe-right ideas.
JD Vance may have voiced support (I didn’t listen to his speech) for conservative or right-wing political forces in Europe, but it is not the same as promoting explicitly racist and fringe-right ideas. There is a night and day difference between the original claim, and the evidence presented.
Sorry but you are just riding semantics here - what is the difference between far-right, extreme-right and “fringe”-right?
AfD is classified as extreme-right by German intelligence.
The US vice president gave them an endorsement in public speeches and met with their leaders privately.
The AFD is actively promoting racist, fringe(sic!)-right ideas such as “remigration” (aka trying to get rid of all German citizens that don’t look “german” enough)
The US government is explicitly promoting the racist ideology that parties like the AFD represent.
If that isn’t enough to open your eyes, please explain what level of “evidence” would be enough - but I rather feel like you have made up your mind long before and aren’t really looking for an honest discussion
> Sorry but you are just riding semantics here - what is the difference between far-right, extreme-right and “fringe”-right?
I have no idea what is the practical difference. I would say that far right is a party or a group that believe in inherent superiority of certain race over the other. Like, white power, etc. I do not think that saying things like “my culture is better” is racist or makes you far right.
> AfD is classified as extreme-right by German intelligence.
> The US vice president gave them an endorsement in public speeches and met with their leaders privately.
> The AFD is actively promoting racist, fringe(sic!)-right ideas such as “remigration” (aka trying to get rid of all German citizens that don’t look “german” enough)
It shows support by JD Vance, sure.
> The US government is explicitly promoting the racist ideology that parties like the AFD represent.
I would not agree that this constitutes as explicitly promoting. In my view explicitly promoting an ideology is standing on a stand and repeating the goals of said ideology. Did JD Vance said that reimigration is a good thing, and that he fully supports it for Germany? Idk, if he did, let’s see, and I will concede.
> If that isn’t enough to open your eyes, please explain what level of “evidence” would be enough - but I rather feel like you have made up your mind long before and aren’t really looking for an honest discussion
I didn’t make my mind. I’m very much against racism, and any other form of discrimination. I’m also against intellectually lazy forms of debate.
In my view and my experience the journalists discredited themselves so much in the past 5 years, so I simply do not trust their interpretations at all (regardless of their political affiliation). Show me the source, so I can see myself.
I showed you all the sources but you prefer to close your eyes.
Of course even the most hardcore AFD racists wouldn’t go on a stand and proclaim that they support remigration, because that would get the party banned and destroy all chances of them getting to power.
I know it’s a tired example online but at least I know a bit about it: do you think the Nazis wrote in their party agenda and proclaimed in their public speeches that the white race is superior and they would start a genocide to exterminate subhumans?
Of course they only revealed their true faces between each other or AFTER they achieved absolute power. Anything else would be ridiculously stupid.
> I do not think that saying things like “my culture is better” is racist
It’s not as racist as the other example you gave but it’s very nationalistic - and from that it’s just a small step to go “if my culture is better, why shouldn’t we rule the world?” - “if my culture is better why should we allow other (worse!) cultures to exist”?
If you arrived at that point you almost have to exterminate other cultures - how could you allow something bad to poison and destroy the people? They could be saved by your obviously better culture! You would almost be a monster not “liberating” them!
“Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen” - look it up
> shows support by JD Vance, sure
He is the vice president of the United States - it’s not like he is some random guy whose opinion has no weight
> Show me the source, so I can see myself.
Then just listen to the speeches and proclamations of your heads of state.
If you are as antiracist as you claim it should be easy to reveal the agenda they never quite state openly but that is always present between the lines
> do you think the Nazis wrote in their party agenda and proclaimed in their public speeches that the white race is superior and they would start a genocide to exterminate subhumans?
This is funny. Are you saying that germans of the early 20th century had the same perspective as you?
> It’s not as racist as the other example you gave but it’s very nationalistic - and from that it’s just a small step to go “if my culture is better, why shouldn’t we rule the world?” - “if my culture is better why should we allow other (worse!) cultures to exist”? If you arrived at that point you almost have to exterminate other cultures - how could you allow something bad to poison and destroy the people? They could be saved by your obviously better culture! You would almost be a monster not “liberating” them!
Maybe, maybe not. The same thing can be said about left as well, and we have a lot of examples in history how left ideologies were taken too far and millions of people had perished in the process: industrialization of USSR by Stalin, Mao's great leap, etc.
So, the bottom line is that extremes are bad.
> Then just listen to the speeches and proclamations of your heads of state. If you are as antiracist as you claim it should be easy to reveal the agenda they never quite state openly but that is always present between the lines
Which ones? Why is it always a referral to something abstract that I have to go an look up in order to prove your point? Do you have a particular speech in mind that you've listened to, where on minute XYZ JD Vance stated something that made you believe that he pushes racist or what not agenda? Please share.
Or, perhaps, you've read about the fact that JD Vance made the speech (and you never listened to it in its entirety), and you've read an article where the journalist attributed some things to JD Vance and his speech?
The court case established the ability for ICE to go and harass anyone who they think looks like they're potentially a migrant. Hmm, I wonder what they'll use to profile those people...
And this domestic ruling is, in your view, an evidence of the “very explicitly stated goals of sowing discord within the US's former "allies", to weaken Europe, and to promote racist and fringe-right views.”?
You can’t be serious. The original claim is about the foreign policy of US government to promote racist ideologies, and your “proof” is a ruling about constitutionality of using race and language as a indicator to investigate someone’s immigration status?
So yeah, this is promoting racist views of "assume everyone who looks non-white and speaks a language other than English as a potential undocumented migrant and go harass them with impunity".
I see that you still do not understand the difference between the stated claim, and its scope, and your evidence. You also seem not to understand the difference between the US government, which is an executive branch, and the Supreme Court, which is a judicial branch, and by design has no policy to push.
Who do you think was involved in this supreme court case? Who was racially profiling people and doing the harassment based on race again? Which group was doing this policy that the SC gave a green stamp to continue doing?
You're ignoring that "to promote racist and fringe-right views" isn't grouped with the foreign things.
Do you see the difference?
I see that you still do not understand the stated claim. Let me break it down for you, maybe English isn't your first language (do be worried about a Kavanaugh stop if you travel in the US though, sorry, I hope they don't detain you for too many weeks):
The claims were:
- sowing discord within the US's former "allies"
- to weaken Europe
- to promote racist and fringe-right views.
Where is the entirely foreign requirement for racist and fringe-right views?
But sure, continue moving the goalposts. I guess to you its only a bad thing for the government to promote foreign racist policies. Is it not a bad thing for the candidate for VP to openly say racist lies and openly acknowledge he knew he was lying and he would continue saying such lies if it accomplishes his political goals? Are you OK with him doing so? Why continue supporting it?
I did not move goal posts at all. In my first reply to your comment I asked for evidence. Even if I use your current parsing (and yes, English is not my first language), I am sorry, but using a Supreme Court decision that is related to domestic matter as evidence of sowing discord and weakening of Europe is ridiculous.
Even if I focus on the "promotion of the racist and fringe-right views", this court decision does not prove it at all. The court is independent, and rules based on their interpretation of the law and the constitution. It has no goal to promote anything.
> Are you OK with him doing so? Why continue supporting it?
No, I am not. But politics today are like this, and you won't find a politician who does not do it.
This whole discussion stemmed from your wild claim, and I did not believe your claim, and I was interested to know how you would prove it.
And yet here you are, moving the goal posts again.
> using a Supreme Court decision that is related to domestic matter as evidence of sowing discord and weakening of Europe is ridiculous.
The statement "to promote racist and fringe-right view" is a separate concept you just continue to choose to ignore. Adding it as a requirement when it wasn't is precisely the definition of moving the goalposts. Painting that statement as having a foreign requirement isn't arguing in good faith, especially after this gets pointed out multiple times.
I'm glad I didn't bother wasting my time providing you with more evidence. It wouldn't have made any difference to you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
> this court decision does not prove it at all
This court decision tells the administration feel free to use race as much as you want to harass people even if there's zero other signals they might not have legal status. Once again, if you can't see the racist enablement of this decision you're choosing to be blind to it.
> But politics today are like this, and you won't find a politician who does not do it.
I can absolutely find politicians that don't call black people monkeys and claiming foreigners are eating your pets. It's really not that hard. It's sad you seem to think that's normal. You might want to re-evaluate who you support if you think they all do this stuff.
I’ve read the article and I do not see any evidence to the original claim. Where did Vance say that he supports racist ideologies? Being anti-immigration is not racist.
I did not move a goal post. Show me where the US government explicitly states that their goal is to promote racist ideology. Not a new article about nothing and filled with interpretations. But an actual evidence.
> And no, saying things like “read his tweets/NYT/whatever yourself” is not evidence
It actually is evidence. Just not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect you're not going to get the better responses that might actually convince you. 1) because you're clearly being argumentative (nothing wrong with that) but primarily 2) because the people smart enough to read through the bullshit and construct an argument with real evidence and citations, are already smart enough to know you're not actually interested in the reasonably convincing argument they might produce.
You're demanding, repeatedly, for concrete evidence. You're not going to get whatever impossible standard you're asking for. Which does seem to be your intent. You don't appear to want to understand because you refuse to engage with anything other than perfect undeniable proof. That's actually an absurd way to behave.
Imagine you're talking to your friend, they think their spouse is cheating on them. Their spouse used to joke about that kinda thing, they're constantly leaving for business trips that they seem to be searching for, they never used to lock their phone but now it's constantly locked, or hidden away when they walk into the room. Oh and you then find out that they've cheated on their previous spouse before their first divorce.
Are they cheating again?
Here I'm sure you'd demand video proof of them having sex with someone other than their spouse, ideally with a newspaper in the frame so you know it's not from before, right?
That's not what a reasonable person would demand. You've right to demand a higher standard when you're going to convict someone in a legal proceeding. It's inane to place that standard on every single observation or conclusion. If one idea is a better predictor of future actions and outcomes. It's reasonable to use that until you get better evidence. Burying your head in the sand and pretending [thing you don't like] isn't true because no one has concrete evidence of them admitting guilt... is the dumbest thing I've read today. It's still early but I'm hoping you still win, because holy shit dude!
You are saying that basically we do not have to hold anyone to any standard because (1) it’s hard, and (2) it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion.
Great!
If the US government explicitly stated their goal of promoting racist ideology, then it should not be hard to find a video clip of a video conference, a published policy memo, or anything of the sorts, that states this. Not an interpretation written by a journalist of something, but a raw source. But, there is nothing.
All we have is articles written in media (which can be biased), which you parse with your own specific bias (so, it’s already bias(bias(rumor))), and you want me to accept it?
> You are saying that basically we do not have to hold anyone to any standard
No, you have completely misunderstood.
> it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion.
Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you are to find conflicting bits. So in that case, if you want to predict or explain the root cause of the behavior, you're going to need to use heuristics.
I really enjoy my friends description: He explained is as "I don't actually believe that Trump is a foreign asset. But given there's no daylight in between his behavior and the behavior of a foreign asset; you can just assume he is, and his decisions make sense." Feel free to substitute racist for asset if you'd like. The point is, your demand for magical proof is a red herring, you can predict correctly without it. Thus it's useful to describe them by the way they behave.
Technically, I guess you don't need to, you're arguments are a perfect counter example, about how you can just ignore the parts that make you feel icky, or conflict with what you assume you understand. Most people you talk to will not be able to perfectly explain the ideas they hold so if you want to learn what they might have to teach, you need to make some kind of attempt to engage with them, even if in the end you find you still disagree, you're very likely to learn something. But given how transparently you don't want to, I thought it might be nice to point out how obvious it is to anyone who might have something useful to explain, that you're just looking to get off on the one sided argument.
> and you want me to accept it? I’m sorry, but it sounds like BS.
I personally don't care what you accept. My reply wasn't attempting to convince you of anything. Just wanted to point out how obvious it is you're not even trying, just for the slim chance that you actually might want to.
No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it, and that we can use deduction based on the incomplete evidence because it makes sense.
> Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you are to find conflicting bits. So in that case, if you want to predict or explain the root cause of the behavior, you're going to need to use heuristics.
What does it even mean? How can you explain root cause of something with heuristics?
> The point is, your demand for magical proof is a red herring, you can predict correctly without it. Thus it's useful to describe them by the way they behave.
Sure, lol. So, what do you do with other "evidence" that does not fit the prediction you are trying to make? You just discard it as "error"?
> Technically, I guess you don't need to, you're arguments are a perfect counter example, about how you can just ignore the parts that make you feel icky, or conflict with what you assume you understand. Most people you talk to will not be able to perfectly explain the ideas they hold so if you want to learn what they might have to teach, you need to make some kind of attempt to engage with them, even if in the end you find you still disagree, you're very likely to learn something. But given how transparently you don't want to, I thought it might be nice to point out how obvious it is to anyone who might have something useful to explain, that you're just looking to get off on the one sided argument.
So, it's on me then that when people are making outlandish claims without evidence that they fail to produce such evidence?
> I personally don't care what you accept. My reply wasn't attempting to convince you of anything. Just wanted to point out how obvious it is you're not even trying, just for the slim chance that you actually might want to.
I do. I am open minded. Show me the evidence of your claim, and let's discuss it on its merits. Not "heuristics" and "predictions".
> So, it's on me then that when people are making outlandish claims without evidence that they fail to produce such evidence?
Yes, but that yes depends on your goals. Your name is reliabilityguy so I'm going to assume you've read the 500Mile email lore already. A responsible person will dig in and engage and try to figure out why emails only work for 500 miles. Even though that's clearly absurd, and they don't have any concrete evidence that's what's going on.
Which is exactly what you're doing. "Your evidence doesn't fit into my context or check my boxes so you obviously don't know anything!"
That's that's the behavior of children, and people who care more about proving their ego over learning something new. You could choose to ask open questions, or ignore people who aren't trying equall...
> Sure, lol. So, what do you do with other "evidence" that does not fit the prediction you are trying to make? You just discard it as "error"?
> No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it,
> I do. I open minded. Show me the evidence of your claim, and let's discuss it on its merits. Not "heuristics" and "predictions".
then from higher in the thread
> Show me the tweet please this is all I am asking
> So, basically, you are saying that they are openly racist?
> I didn’t make my mind. I’m very much against racism, and any other form of discrimination. I’m also against intellectually lazy forms of debate.
but mostly, you respond like an argumentive asshole. None of these are open or exploratory comments. They all seek to win the debate, not to learn anything.
I guess the end of it is; the conversation you have with someone is exactly on you as much as you want it to be. You say that you are, but you definitely are not understanding what I'm trying to explain. Right, doesn't matter in this context, so right or wrong, part of that is on me, and part of that is on you. Xkcd has a comic for you already https://xkcd.com/1984/ You're welcome to shout "WRONG" into the microphone before wandering off on a tangent. But you don't learn anything that way.
This is fine. If successful, the next administration can just leverage it for a different kind of agenda. In fact, by the time we know whether it's successful, this admin will likely be gone.
I'm a bit conflicted though. I hated the last admin's censorship efforts for wrong think. Now, looking at the online discourse landscape, I'm starting to think we might have thrown out the baby with the birth water. Why can't we just be normal!
Xcode is really only usable for Objective-C, C and Swift its support for C++ e.g. simple things like formatting and definitions and debugging for C++ are as you note are just poor
Visual Studio does treat C++ as a first class language (I suspect because that was the first non C language it supported and Windows apps used C++ in the 1990s)
I would try Clion for C++ if you can't use VS.
Eclipse was reasonable 15 years ago when Apple used gcc.
It really depends on how reliable you want the code to be. Many business application developers prioritize development speed and don't want to think about errors, for them checked exceptions may seem like a hassle. For developers who prioritize reliability unchecked exceptions are a huge problem because they are not part of the contract and can change without notice.
Because java is garbage-collected and doesn't have any of the problems of C++ exceptions, so checked exceptions just become a nuisance of having to try/catch everything.
Stick a petrol version of the engine in (Peugeot XU instead of XUD) and convert it to run on propane. There you go, now the exhaust is just water and carbon dioxide, and you don't die from breathing it in. No CO, no HC, and not really any more NOx that was in the air it sucked in.
This is why forklifts run on gas, instead of petrol or diesel.
We could have had incredibly clean air in our cities 25 years ago, if the government hadn't decided that pushing "scrappage schemes" to get people to buy "cleaner greener diesels" was cheaper.
Yes Dark Sky had the best UI of any weather app I have used.
I now use Weathergraph which does it differently but I would go back to Dark Sky (and pay for it) in a flash.
It shows the correct things and on a phone understands that showing the temperatures across the screen is useless as if I go out I want to know what the weather is like when I might make the journey back in 8+ hours time. I might not care what the weather is in 4 hours time as I will be inside.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/19/us-funding-for...
reply