Imagine

History teaches us that when people are desperate they are more likely to turn to the right for solutions. That’s why right wingers like to keep them desperate. It’s not in their interests to make things better.

Can verify: am Brit.

Liz truss tried the libertarian experiment, sidestepped the Office for Budget Responsibility that her own party set up so that they were prevented from announcing the forthcoming shitshow (because she correctly thought they would be doom and gloom about it), tanked the economy in less than one week, blamed the media for it, blamed not going far enough for it, blamed the Chancellor of the Exchequer for it, sacked him, said she wouldn’t resign but was famously outlasted by a lettuce.

Now she simps for the republicans but is largely ignored by them. She still maintains she was right, which is par for the course for idiot lying right wingers.

They elected him because inflation was awful in Argentina for a long time. He said he would improve it, but he made it much, much worse. It’s starting to stabilise back down to the original awfully high levels he inherited from the terrifyingly stratospheric levels he took it to, simply because the people really have no money left and aren’t buying anything and the shopkeepers can’t raise prices too fast, so of course he’s claiming that his policies are working because it’s getting better.

Economists suspect that shutting down the whole economy for lack of cash after astronomical inflation isn’t the strong long term solution to inflation that the libertarians like to claim they’re creating.

He got rid of rent controls and other price controls. Because it would fix inflation, apparently.

So yeah, he got elected because the economy has been bad for a long time and they haven’t tried far right in quite a while. It’s got even worse of course.

I deduce that your phone never randomly locks while you’re using it as a satnav. Lucky you.

I’d also like to note that I agree with Abortion if it’s simply removing a dead foetus. I see that as less of an abortion and more of removing a dead foetus that’s already dead.

Yes, that’s not abortion, that’s just D&C after the foetus died.

As for abortions in case of the pregnancy might kill the woman, those are exceedingly rare as is, but should still be allowed.

But it’s the same D&C procedure whether the foetus was deliberately terminated or it died of natural causes, and a doctor performing a D&C is at real and genuine risk of losing their career and going to prison, and a woman in need of D&C is at risk of losing her fertility or her life from sepsis or other complications. Criminalizing healthcare kills women. Doctors need a lot of good luck keeping their job in a red state if they agree to perform a D&C. Don’t rely on facts winning a case when anti-abortion rhetoric is one of the two main ways republicans have got and kept power.

It’s clear that you think God loves unborn children. Do you think God loves women who stillbirth? They are at genuine risk of jail time because their baby died. Do you think God loves children who were raped? Do you think God wants rape victims to bear their rapists children? Do you believe that God always chooses the baby over the mother, no matter the cost or the consequences? Do you think God doesn’t like it when we intervene in matters of life and death?

Do you, and this is the central question, and the only one that matters really, believe that God wants the government to put doctors and women in prison whenever an abortion is performed, and do you think God wants the increased maternal death rates amongst otherwise healthy women who have miscarried that these new policies are creating? Before you answer, please realise that early miscarriage is far, far more common and far far less admitted in public than people who have never admitted to having a miscarriage with other women in a safe environment realise. Are miscarriages hateful to God too? Is it the woman’s fault, and should she go to prison if she can’t prove her miscarriage was natural?

The second question is this: does God care more about putting women and doctors in prison after a foetus dies more than God cares about feeding the poor and the homeless? More than looking after foreigners? More than loving your neighbour and your enemy? Is it more important to love God or to love money?

Because what I see in america is a lot of people justifying being super condemnatory about women and immigrants and hating on helping, all in the name of religion, and I just don’t see much of “love God and love your neighbour”. No wonder young people are leaving the american church in droves. What’s all that hate got that might draw them in? Maybe if it had more for them than the promise of jailing women and doctors, they might see the point, but a lot of church folks can’t get past the jailing of women and doctors and the condemnation of sinners they judge to be particularly scandalously sinful, unless of course they’re republicans or church leaders, in which case denial that anything went wrong. Not forgiveness, that would require an admission of guilt. Just minimisation and cover up.

I remember stories about Jesus getting cross with the temple being full of money and the religious leaders acting pious while making up hard and harsh rules for everyone else to follow (not so much themselves). Is it a relevant story for today? Isn’t it really sad and far from following commandments if the church gets into the judging others and condemnation business? I don’t think it was ever supposed to be about big theatres, big money, politics, professional music and plenty of prison time for plenty of sinners. Hadn’t it better get back very urgently to what Jesus actually said to do?

Edit: I think that’s a genuine question from someone who is surprised by me calling it misinterpretation and has engaged with another perspective politely and unlike many people, is listening as well as expressing their point of view. I wish more people responded like that with a request for information and respectful discussion afterwards. Evidence shows that the “How?” was genuine. Hence my upvote.

I don’t know any religious people who think abortion is great, but I don’t know any pro-choice folk who think it’s great either, they just think it shouldn’t land a woman or a health professional in jail and they don’t like that the maternal death rate is climbing so fast in Texas which had the first five-week abortion limit in the states.

Before the republicans figured they could be really judgemental and condemnatory about it (what does your Bible say about that kind of behavior?) and use it as a wedge issue to drive religious folks away from the democrats, it was originally a catholic-only thing to be absolutely opposed to abortion for a long time, justified by a misinterpretation of the sin of Onan, which the catholics somehow took to be a lesson about semen not being allowed on the floor, when it’s quite clearly about family duty and not help to provide a kid for his brother’s young widow who would otherwise be childless - held to be shameful for her. He wasn’t kind. I think you could boldly interpret that story to be pro IVF but I don’t think you can interpret it to be anti-abortion and anti women’s choice unless you’re really baked-in misogynistic before you think about it.

Yeah I know it says “do not murder” but the abortion bans are literally killing women with already dead foetuses because no health professional can afford to risk their career and freedom to take any step whatsoever to save their lives until it’s obvious enough that they’re at death’s door that the court couldn’t conclude otherwise. “She might have died later” isn’t compelling enough - “she was coding” is.

I challenge you to find a bible passage explicitly condemning abortion. I can find you at least ten explicitly condemning judgementalism, but also condemning not caring for the poor, not caring for foreigners, walking by when others are suffering, not healing someone when you can. The modern republican party is so far from “What Would Jesus Do?” and worships the liar in chief, Donald J Trump.

So yes, somehow a bunch of big american corporate churchgoers got convinced that being rich is a sign you are a good person, that stopping abortion is the main lesson from the scriptures and that caring about black people, foreigners, poor people etc is evil. Somehow “let the person who did nothing wrong cast the first stone… go, I don’t condemn you either” became “lock her up”. If you don’t think that’s a misinterpretation of your Bible, yours is different to the ones I’ve seen.

Article needs more pictures of sinkholes.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-09/what-is-a-sinkhole/8251282 has some

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-30532117 has more

https://theconversation.com/sinkholes-when-the-ground-fights-back-after-centuries-of-exploitation-153755

You’d think this would give republicans pause, or make them reconsider.

Young women dying in dramatically increasing numbers.

But it won’t.

All these young women left to die on the altar of their misinterpretation of their religion and their uncaring principles.

But no, it was a policy born in hate and the tragic imposed deaths of women are not an unfortunate side effect, they’re just misogyny in action. Working itself out.

If they cared about babies, there would be more support for women, for early years interventions, and maybe they might also care about children dying in schools on the altar of their misunderstanding of their 2nd amendment and their uncaring principles.

But no, they don’t care about children dying in schools either, and do you know why? Because caring about children dying in schools doesn’t involve telling women what they have to do and ruling their lives with oppressive freedom-denying laws.

Caring about children dying in schools would involve some infringement on their UNDENYABLE RIGHT TO FEEL IMPORTANT with a gun and caring about women dying in childbirth would interfere with their UNDENYABLE RIGHT TO FEEL IMPORTANT with a rule about what women can and can’t do.

Removed by mod

Thank you for this.

What was he, and what was on that data crystal he gave you?

Reflection, surprise, terror.
For the future.

Trump is delusional.

Wow. This would never have happened on reddit! Go us!

That’s a much better response!

Oh yeah, rust has to win, but I think this was an empathy-free paradigm war masquerading as an innocent request for information. I think trying to bolt rust into Linux is a strategic error. It’s going to cause quite a lot of unnecessary friction and an awful lot of unnecessary technical complication and will be absolutely riddled with complexities and ways of doing things that are inherently unsafe. Instead build a posix compliant OS as rust from the bottom up and it’ll knock the spots off Linux and will be rock solid. It’ll take well over a decade but it’ll be far, far better.

That was a low effort response to a well written detailed post that took quite a while to write. At least deal with some of the issues raised, don’t just ignore everything they said and dismiss them as willfully ignorant.

TL;DR: Vast culture clash that rust guys didn’t perceive and C guys hated and false assertion that “you don’t need to learn rust” based on inexplicably naive lack of understanding that maintenance might be necessary.

If someone builds a rust api on top of your C code inside your project, you have exactly five choices: (1) preserve the assumptions the rust code is making (2) only change your code if you have a rust expert to collaborate with handy (3) edit the rust code yourself (4) break the rust assumptions leading to hard to find bugs (5) break the build. The C guys hated all five of those options, and the rust guys told them they didn’t need to worry their pretty little heads about it. ON, they weren’t as dismissive as that, but they either didn’t understand those as issues or didn’t care about them or dismissed them.

The rust guys were asking the C guys to tell them the semantics so that they could fix the type signatures for their rust functions and the C guys were reluctant to do that because they wanted to be able to change the semantics of that turned out to be useful to them. They didn’t want to commit so something that was documented in a way they weren’t familiar with because they felt that even if they wanted to, they couldn’t ensure their code was compliant with this specification going forward because they didn’t understand the rust type signature fully. (They got hung up on the self argument and launched a rant against OOP.)

The rust guys knew instinctively that the Result return type meant that the operation could fail and could tell from the two arguments to that both in what ways it could fail and every kind of answer it could produce if it succeeded, but the C guys found almost none of that obvious. This was for just one function in the rust API, but it also radically changed the way of doing it. This one rust call replaced the whole algorithms of ask, check answer, if none, check this and that, otherwise do this blah blah blah. The C guys are used to keeping everything lean and simple with a single purpose and were being asked to think of a while collection of procedural knowledge and edge cases with a handle everything monolith. But they were audibly reluctant to commit to that being all the edge cases because they don’t think of all of those tests as one thing and instinctively wouldn’t write something that checks for all of the edge cases because (a) in a lot of circumstances the code they’re writing only needs to know that there was a problem and will give up quickly and move on and (b) they want to be able to freely choose to add other edge cases in the future like they normally do without having to worry about the rust code breaking.

They weren’t complaining that they were being asked to write rust, they were complaining that they didn’t want to learn rust, and they were complaining this because they could see that to preserve all the rust API type signatures they would have to understand them, the expectations around them and memory safety principles, so that a rust programmer in the future wouldn’t have to change the rust type signature.

The rust guys would have gained a lot more traction by just asking the C guys to keep a bunch of comments up to date detailing the semantics and error checking procedures, and promising to edit their rust API if the C code changes, but I suspect they didn’t ask for that because they know that no guarantees come from a comment and they want to be sure that the rust code works across all the possible scenarios and in rust culture, that is always documented in the type system where it can be enforced.

The rust guys spoke like it was self evident that having a monolithic API with a bunch of stuff guaranteed by the rust compiler was best, but seem not to have realised that this is a massive culture clash because the C guys come from a culture of rejecting the idea of compiler guarantees anyway (because they have long had confidence in their ability to hand optimize their code to be faster than some prescriptive compiler’s output and look down on people who choose to have the guardrails up).

They felt like they were being asked to help write an interface definition in a monolithic style that they have always rejected, to achieve goals that they have long resisted, in a language that they find alien, with no guarantees for them that the rust guys were going to stick around to agree and implement the rust changes necessary if they changed the C code, and with no confidence that they understood what would count as a breaking change at the rust level.

This perceived straightjacket made them particularly cross. They complained about the inability to change their C code and its semantics and the need to learn enough rust to understand quickly what not to change, but they didn’t want to not change things and would need to edit the rust API at the same time as editing the C code if they didn’t want the rust build to break, and then there would be even more downstream changes from that, so realistically they would need not only to be able to understand the rust type signatures, they would need to be able to edit both the type signatures and the functions themselves, and basically maintain all the downstream rust, and they would want to be sure they were writing efficient rust, well aware that it took them decades to get to the level of extreme efficiency they write in pure C, a much simpler language.

The rust guys said “Just tell us what your code means so we can write our type signatures”, but the C guys didn’t want to help create for themselves a prison whose walls were of a strange and intricate design they found hard to perceive, made out of materials they didn’t have experience working with. They felt like the first guys were asking them how all the doors, windows, chimneys, air vents etc of the house that they built by hand would ever be used, so they could encase it in a stainless steel shell and make it part of a giant steel city. The C guys said “but I might want to build an extension or a wider garage!” They claimed that the C guys didn’t have to learn how to weld or manufacture steel sheets, and that their house would be much safer, but for some reason this didn’t win the C guys round to the plan, and there’s a bunch of people online calling the C guys tech luddites for not liking the whole thing and saying that they were incorrect that they needed to learn rust just because the rust guys made that claim, but that claim is actually completely incorrect unless you think that it’s OK to stop the project compiling with your pull request or you think that changes to the C code should be banned wherever a rust API is built on top of it.

I saw the clip previously. The rust guys are absolutely assuming that the C guys would go for something because (a) the compiler guarantees it’s memory safe (b) the semantics would be encoded in the type system. They demonstrate this using rust terminology and algebraic data types. Algebraic data types are the bees knees, (but not with that syntax and clumsiness), and compiler guarantees are the bees knees, but that’s not how a C programmer who’s middle aged sees the world, it just isn’t. Your typical middle aged C programmer grew up telling pascal programmers that automatic array bounds checking is for wimps and real men use pointer arithmetic and their programs run five times as fast. They were always right because their programs did really run significantly faster, but now rust comes along and its fast and safe. Why wouldn’t C programmers like it? Because the speed was the excuse and the lack of guardrails was the real reason they liked C.

I said it’s a massive culture clash that the rust folks didn’t realise they were having because they just assume that “memory safe” wins people round, whereas C folks value their freedom from automatic compiler-based safety, and here you are, sounding like a rust person, saying it isn’t a culture clash at all and that the rust folks are right about memory safety and the C folks are just being irresponsible.

Expecting C programmers to like a compiler-based approach to memory safety is like expecting petrolheads to like a car purely because it’s electric. They have always viewed compiler based memory safety techniques as guard rails for novices. In their view, good bowlers don’t need guard rails at the bowling alley. It’s a massive massive clash of cultures and the rust folks come into the discussion with an assumption that C devs would leap with joy at the chance to automate memory management. Rust and C are complete opposites, but rust programmers seem to assume that just because rust is fast C programmers will love it.