• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 3rd, 2023

help-circle


  • I never said this was a bad value, but I think we all know that these prices will not remain. They will increase because people will pay it once they are locked in. And if someone buys a used car, they have to pay that subscription to get these features, ensuring the manufacturer gets a slice from used sales. I can understand the cost, but it sets a dangerous precedent. It should be one time fee that grants the VIN access to the severs permanently. What would be really nice is if we had legislation that requires companies with a certain amount of revenue to maintain services for older products so they can’t just pull the plug later anyways.



  • Kind of. With hoisting, the compiler/interpreter will find variable declarations and execute them before executing the rest of the code. Hoisting leaves the variables as undefined until the code assigning the value to the variable is executed. Hoisting does not initialize the variables.

    For example:

    console.log(foo);
    var foo;
    //Expected output: console logs ‘null’

    foo = ‘bar’;
    console.log(foo);
    var foo;
    //Expected output: console logs ‘bar’

    console.log(foo === undefined);
    var foo;
    //Expected output: console logs ‘true’

    This means you can essentially write your code with variable declarations at the end, but it will still be executed as though the declarations were at the beginning. Your initializations and value assignments will still be executed as normal.

    This is a feature that you should probably avoid because I honestly cannot think of any good use case for it that won’t end up causing confusion, but it is important to understand that every variable within your scope will be declared at the beginning of execution regardless of where it is written within your code.



  • Lmao you are actually incapable of good faith, probably because of how obviously angry you are hahaha

    You are still trying to argue that your idealized theoretical version of communism is what needs to be accepted, but that a corrupted and condemned version of capitalism is what capitalism is inherently at its core. By your own standard, communism is equally abhorrent because of how it has been actually implemented in the past.

    A company getting bailed out is not capitalism. It is socialism. A capitalist society implementing corporate socialism is a corruption of the core ideology of capitalism. I will agree that it is the end goal of corporatism, but corporatism is a corruption of capitalism.

    And wow you really still don’t get the “no true scotsman” thing… I mean you probably do but once again, you are only putting bad faith forward. Since you clearly need it spelled out in detail, let me just copy this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “No true Scotsman”:

    The “no true Scotsman” fallacy is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:[7][3][4]

    not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified assertion

    offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample

    using rhetoric to hide the modification

    Oops, you accidentally did all those things. You never retracted your assertion, you modified the assertion with further qualifiers, and tried to downplay that further qualification. You actually pulled a “no true scotsman” on a statement about someone being a scotsman. It’s so on the nose that you MUST be a troll lmao



  • Capitalism is absolutely not functioning as intended and has 100% been corrupted… if capitalism worked as intended, then why have companies been “bailed out” from failing naturally under capitalism? Capitalism has failed just as much as everything else has failed, and has been corrupted by the people in charge just the same. Communism doesn’t work, Capitalism doesn’t work, nothing we have right now works.

    And you literally still don’t understand the concept of “no true scotsman” lmao. It is also known as the “appeal to purity”. Let me be more clear:

    If someone has Scottish ancestry, is born in Scotland, naturalises to Scotland, or is born and raised within largely Scottish culture, they are Scottish. It doesn’t matter where that person was born or where they live. To say that someone cannot be Scottish unless they fit your specific definition and criteria is the exact fallacy being referenced, and you actually just doubled down on that thinking that it somehow makes you not guilty of that fallacy? Wild.


  • Lmao what side are you on? Your entire rhetoric is equally critical of and applicable to communism. If communism is allowed to be viewed as an ideology that has been corrupted, then capitalism is exactly the same. You don’t get to cherry pick and say “you have to look at A with rose-colored glasses and you only get to accept the idealized version of it, but you must only look at the bad things that have come from B and don’t get to accept its ideals!”

    Also you literally went full “no true scotsman” at the end, literally verbatim lmao. You actually just tried to say that one of the most well known fallacies is not a fallacy hahaha wtf is wrong with you





  • No, I read the “win/win” as listing there only being two possible scenarios. They are saying you either win or you win. “Win/win” reads as “win or win”, so there is your “either… or”, but even then you don’t need to say specific words to be able to imply exclusivity.

    Example:
    “You must be joking, and if not, then you are a fool” Notice how in that sentence I did not use “either/or”, yet I still implied only two possibilities? Well, that sentence is homogenous to the sentence in OP’s post. I just used “if/then” instead of “either/or”.


  • The post suggests that there are only two options in the scenario: they are either secretly trans, or they are a bigot trying to belittle and insult trans women. They don’t leave any nuance for a different option. Dare I say that they have a rather binary way of thinking…


  • I never understood this obviously toxic take… saying that a cisgendered male crossdressing MUST be trans or trans-curious is exactly the same toxic energy as denying trans women’s existence.

    Are you folks really gonna say that, for example, Tim Curry is a closet Trans Woman? Because that’s the kind of thing being implied by that. Just let people do what they are gonna do and be what they are gonna be, leave your assumptions and judgements out of it.



  • CheezyWeezle@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlwhat?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    They do share a significant commonality, though; they are both interpreted languages, rather than compiled. Sure, you can compile them, but they are meant to be run interpreted so you can quickly and easily tweak and change things and not have to wait for compilation to see the results. In that regard they are very comparable.