I think this one is a miss. TOS is inspired by _british_ naval history. Loss, fear, and failure are central to the show. In this era of TV, leading characters still had large flaws. Kirk is frozen by choice, Spock believes himself superior, Bones is a bigoted luddite. We as viewers get to see the pain this causes and their efforts to improve. It's wholly different than modern US television including all other ST media. Meanwhile, 70s Dr. Who is packed with automatic weapons fire and explosions and the formula has always been the Doctor knows best. (I am a huge fan of all the mentioned shows.)
For a good, modern example we can look at Ghosts (suddenly renamed "Ghosts UK" on my streaming services) and Ghosts US. The adaptation is agonizing. They stripped the important aspects of the story but kept a boy scout, toy soldier, and an interracial marriage. I found that telling.
I'd argue that DS9 was pretty stand-outish as well.
Worf continues to grapple with honor and restoring his family name, but he's too stubborn and proud to "debase" himself to defeat his political opponents.
Sisko refuses to accept that his fate is preordained, leading to one disaster after another every time he tries to go his own way. His loyalties are also split because of his status as Emissary, straining his relationship with both sides - not to mention the cultural issues.
Odo's pride is his constant downfall, and despite arguing that he's an island unto himself, he's miserably lonely and constantly pining.
Kira can't get over the trauma of her past, and although she does mellow out as the series goes on, when she gets triggered she goes on a rampage.
Dax's past hosts leave her in constant conflict, and she's usually trying desperately to appear in control, even when it's obvious she is not. In Jadzia it's particularly bad due to her issues with Curzon and Joran.
Nog is desperate for adult approval, and is in constant search of ways to gain respect, sometimes to disastrous results.
Whatever work is paying for on a given day. We've rotated through a few offerings. It's a work truck not a personal vehicle, for me.
I manage a team of interns and I don't have the energy to babysit an agent too. For me, gpt and gemini yield the best talk-it-through approach. For example, dropping a research paper into the chat and describing details until the implementation is clarified.
We also use Claude and Cursor, and that was an exceptionally disruptive experience. Huge, sweeping, wrong changes all over. Gyah! If I bitch about todo! macros, this is where they came from.
For hobby projects, I sometimes use whatever free agent microsoft is shilling via VS Code (and me selling my data) that day. This is relatively productive, but reaches profoundly wrong conclusions.
Writing for CLR in visual studio is the smoothest smart-complete experience today.
How about #59: "Free advice is seldom cheap." Because you're basically saying that there's no such thing as free, and it's simply an 'unclarified financial contract to be consolidated at a later time.' Quark would approve! If I'm paying for a friend's lunch it's because I want to, not because I expect anything from him in the future. And beyond that, I do not consider downloading something somebody has released for free as establishing a relationship.
The third rule of acquisition, quite obviously. But you seem to be forgetting the sixteenth.
More importantly: you are forgetting the meaning of “acquisition”. The instant the author released the software as free software, it was no longer “theirs”. It became everyone’s. The authorship is from that instant irrelevant.
It was “acquired” by the user in a moral sense at the time it was licensed by the original author (for a payment of $0, chosen by the author), not at the time the licensee began using it to make millions.
The original author chose the moral obligation placed upon the recipients of this gift, and they EXPLICITLY chose zero when they picked the license. To donate money to them later is to contravene their expressed wishes.
You can pretend that “they didn’t really mean that” but they are free to commit any text whatsoever they choose in ./LICENSE, and they chose one that declares THEIR OWN PERSONAL OPINION of the payments morally obligated by use of the software to be zero.
> You've created a logical justification for a myopic, misanthropic world view.
Nobody said it wouldn't be nice, but that it does not confer "obligation". This is the key word. I would argue a world where people do things because they want to, and not because they feel they have to, would actually generally be a nicer world to live in.
> Many find reciprocation important in a relationship.
Yes, and those sorts of relationships aren't really built on much if a gift obligates the other to repay. Why even buy lunch then? It just becomes this back and forth obligation and it is wearing and actually erodes the relationship slightly, if anything. I would argue a true gift is one that does not obligate the other party to reciprocate. That does NOT mean it would not be a decent thing to do something nice (for the other person OR someone else), but just that it is not obligated. The person should not feel a weight to do so. Once this weight is lifted, it is actually very freeing, and it strengthens the relationship, if anything.
I don't buy someone lunch with an implicit expectation that they'll buy me lunch in the future. That's tacky and gross. I buy lunch because I wanted to buy them lunch, and if they decide to buy me lunch, I happily accept.
Means you're not in the "many" segment. Doesn't mean many others are not in the "many" segment. I, myself, find reciprocation important even if not for identical "gifts".
Yes, there's no argument because you're incapable of coming up with an argument because you don't have anything to base it on. You're just responding emotionally and trying to slander them because you know that they made a good point and you hate that.
> You've created a logical justification for a myopic, misanthropic world view.
It is neither. It is a quite reasonable worldview that the vast majority of the population subscribes to and finds rather acceptable.
> Many find reciprocation important in a relationship.
This is a non-answer, because you know that the answer is "no", but you can't bear to say it because that would be admitting that your position is inconsistent, yet you can't assert that the answer is "yes" because that's obviously insane.
Thank you for so eloquently refuting all of your own arguments.
Folks rarely have this choice. What industry wants a barista outside food service? This is why we get stuck wearing a green apron for a decade, or working call center jobs, or any other crappy job.
People aren’t locked into being baristas. People immigrate from all over the world to the US, and become whatever they have to. Dry cleaners, landscapers, cooks, maids, nurses, etc.
In the JS example, a synchronous function cannot poll the result of a Promise. This is meaningfully different when implementing loops and streams. Ex, game loop, an animation frame, polling a stream.
A great example is React Suspense. To suspend a component, the render function throws a Promise. To trigger a parent Error Boundary, the render function throws an error. To resume a component, the render function returns a result. React never made the suspense API public because it's a footgun.
If a JS Promise were inspectable, a synchronous render function could poll its result, and suspended components would not need to use throw to try and extend the language.
.NET has promises that you can poll synchronously. The problem with them is that if you have a single thread, then by definition while your synchronous code is running, none of the async callbacks can be running. So if you poll a Task and it's not complete yet, there's nothing you can do to wait for its completion.
Well, technically you can run a nested event loop, I guess. But that's such a heavy sync-wrapping-async solution that it's rarely used other than as a temporary hack in legacy code.
I see. I guess JS is the only language with the coloring problem, then, which is strange because it's one of the few with a built-in event loop.
This Io business is isomorphic to async/await in Rust or Python [1]. Go also has a built-in "event loop"-type thing, but decidedly does not have a coloring problem. I can't think of any languages besides JS that do.
I know. It's outrageous that they are so emboldened to publicly declare this to be their policy and that the practice has survived without condemnation for this long. As a White man, their reasoning in that link is insulting - and very clearly intended to be so.
Just because they are brazen, shameless, and (so far) unchallenged in their racism doesn't make it ok.
That might be true, but that wasn't really their point.
Being accurate is less important than trying to get the lie out in front of as many eyeballs as possible, so the lie can be repeated in front of people who might not realize this sort of information offhand.
I spent a good minute thinking of the best reply. You're right, the truth was immaterial to them and they were posting in bad faith. Proving that this is the result of cooperation, to me, was the quickest way to unravel the rest of their post.
I think this one is a miss. TOS is inspired by _british_ naval history. Loss, fear, and failure are central to the show. In this era of TV, leading characters still had large flaws. Kirk is frozen by choice, Spock believes himself superior, Bones is a bigoted luddite. We as viewers get to see the pain this causes and their efforts to improve. It's wholly different than modern US television including all other ST media. Meanwhile, 70s Dr. Who is packed with automatic weapons fire and explosions and the formula has always been the Doctor knows best. (I am a huge fan of all the mentioned shows.)
For a good, modern example we can look at Ghosts (suddenly renamed "Ghosts UK" on my streaming services) and Ghosts US. The adaptation is agonizing. They stripped the important aspects of the story but kept a boy scout, toy soldier, and an interracial marriage. I found that telling.
reply