But the other side of that is no political accountability. There’s no risk of punishment, so why should they care? Insider trading, corruption, nepotism, general lying, acting in bad faith, and intentionally misrepresenting facts to disrupt useful debate.
Politicians get away with all of that and more, and get paid massive amounts of money, above and below the table, while they do it.
It’s so weird to me, what do they expect to happen to the economy of their state when their workforce has such a poor education?
Okay sure but who’s going to fill up all the for-profit prisons and act as military gun fodder? Won’t somebody please think about the military industrial complex??
Like most things, it’s about balance. All changes to open source software must be approved by the community managing it, and if that community is lazy or poorly managed or simply too busy then there’s an opportunity for new vulnerabilities to be created, either accidentally or maliciously.
But for well managed software, as other people have said you can get more changes more frequently, more security as many people are evaluating the code base, and greater attention to what users want rather than what’s profitable. Whereas with closed source software there is a greater focus on profitability, and sometimes that leaves vulnerabilities open when development is rushed and/or vulnerabilities are not seen as important enough to justify the cost to fix, but sometimes that tendancy towards profitability can also ensure the product stays a market leader. Steam may be a good example of a good closed source product.
Yes, fair correction. Perhaps that is a point itself, the way debates between political opponents are presented as formal and official when in fact they are entirely at the whim of the broadcaster and the politicians involved.
Is it not? I was under the belief that official political debates have a large influence on the format and rules of these debate clubs.
If not, it shouldn’t be that difficult to verify whether competitor’s statements are backed by evidence, or if they’re made up, or if they’re really opinions disguised as facts.
That’s because that’s how politics works. If you can get enough people to believe that what you say is true and act on that belief, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s actually true or not.
I don’t know if I’d go that far. If you’re talking about a quick script then sure, whatever gets the job done. But for any actual project the use of good, consistent typing does a lot for readability and future-proofing. And in strongly-typed languages it can have a notable affect on the overall functionality too.
If you can’t tell from context whether something is a float or if it’ll overflow the int max then you probably need to re-think the entire method.
But it’s definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.
No I didn’t, I think I was pretty clear. We need to reduce the number of guns available, nothing else will be effective until we do. I do believe any solution that does not involve removing guns at some point is incomplete. But removing guns on its own is not enough.
Yes, technically weapons are tools
Again, I’m not arguing a gun isn’t a tool. In fact, in the very comment you’re replying to I said they are.
But all of this is besides the actual point, you derailed the point of gun culture and availability driving gun violence with an ultimately meaningless conversation about semantics.
Yes, technically weapons are tools, that’s because the definition of a tool is so broad, just a device used to carry out a particular task.
That’s why I never said he was wrong to call a gun a tool, I said it was misleading, which it is. When a reasonable person thinks of a tool they do not think of a gun, you think of a wrench or a screwdriver or a swiss army knife, or something like that.
Calling a gun a tool is intentionally misleading. A gun’s sole purpose is as a weapon, using it any other way is a misuse of that “tool”. Whereas knives have various practical purposes. Which was obviously the purpose of my initial reply.
In some cases, yes, having a gun is entirely legitimate (assuming used safely) such as protection from dangerous wildlife. But the number of legitimate cases does not even come close to justifying the number of guns, or the gun culture, in America. Violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, the presence of guns, the acceptance of gun culture, and the normalization of gun violence are things that contribute to the frequency of gun crime.
The removal of guns, and restricting of them to legitimate use cases IS dealing with the underlying social issues. But it’s definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.
Yeah man, let me just get my kitchen gun or my box shooter or my letter pistol.
Oh wait, sorry, it’s not guns I’m thinking of that has many completely harmless uses, it’s knives!
Nice, thanks, I didn’t know about this! I assumed the ads were just an unfortunate necessity to maintain the site, but you can definitely tell there’s a bigger difference when you compare the two.
Aside from email already being federated as others have said, there’s a site called PrivacyTools with lots of links for the other things you talked about and lots more.
It seems like their economy is reliant on a series of short term fixes, and as each one winds down another bigger one needs to take its place.
12% interest is another example of this, it will improve things in the short term but has no effect on the underlying problems, meaning that in a couple of months or so something even more drastic will be needed.