111–120 of 289 posts
https://youtu.be/X2xlQaimsGg?feature=shared&t=13
FYI, Python is named after Monty Python , who got into all kinds of trouble making fun of and saying things that upset basically everyone (religion to LGBT), which is ironic considering the circumstances.
He should have stayed on as BDFL. Now in the power vacuum a bunch of “activists” and political enthusiasts will take over and ruin the whole thing for everyone, or at least significantly slow down the progress
There was a tremendous amount of frustration around the walrus operator, which led to him stepping down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't; I got permabanned from the site for hate speech. What did I say? That it's unfair for men to compete in women's sports and that TRAs use bad faith tactics like deplatforming as a means to silence their critics and avoid debate. The weaponisation of censorship is predominantly a far left tactic.
> The weaponisation of censorship is predominantly a far left tactic. Incorrect. It's an authoritarian tactic, which can either be left or right. On the right today is Idaho with their new book banning law prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not). On the left, you have Tipper Gore which was famous for advocating for the sticker placed on CD's to alert…
Today - in the present, given the relative levels of influence of the different authoritarian groups, it is predominantly the far left that is engaged in the weaponisation of censorship.
I can't take the children's library arguments seriously any more.
Right now there are books in school libraries that are too obscene to be read from in council meetings.
[flagged]
Maybe look at how it's worked out in practice, instead of just giving the theory. We have a two-party system, and that's just the way it is. https://alaskapublic.org/2024/05/29/ranked-choice-voting-tha... Gamesmanship: Alaska is a red state. Only RCV would result in a Dem being elected. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/alaska-ranked-choice-voting-mary... (not on archive, sorry. Here's the relevant part) Republicans have l…
But what's a better voting system that would have achieve the presumably optimal outcome here (the less-polarizing GOP candidate Begich getting elected)?
If we just compare to simply plurality voting, the outcome seems the same: Peltola got the highest vote of the 3, so in regular FPTP voting, she would have won. Or if we compare to FPTP party-based elections as is normally done in the US, I think again it would have been the same: the GOP vote was split between Palin and Begich, and presumably Palin would have narrowly won that party's primary, and then enough GOP voters hated her enough to list Peltola 2nd-choice in the RCV, so presumably they would have also voted for Peltola in a regular party-based election, so again the outcome would have been the same.
If anything, I think this shows that these multi-candidate elections have odd-looking results when there's uneven numbers of candidates for the different parties. If there had been 2 DNC candidates, this might have played out quite differently. But maybe not: in this particular election, one of the candidates (Palin) was extremely polarizing and many voters truly hated her, but she had enough support from the right-leaning voters to get a majority on that side, over the more moderate Begich. But that was unique to the GOP side; there's no reason to think that the left-leaning voters of Alaska would have similarly voted in high numbers for an extremely polarizing candidate like AOC: Alaska just doesn't have many far-left voters the way some other states do. So it seems like the right outcome may have been reached here, because so many GOP voters in Alaska are willing to support a very extreme and polarizing candidate, rather than a more moderate one: they ended up making themselves irrelevant.
The original text stated: > I don’t know much about voting systems, but I know someone who does. Unfortunately he’s currently banned. Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice? Currently, the text reads: > This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden. Since it has been hidden for more than 24 hours, this suggests that a moderator action has marked it as permanently hid…
I'm an outsider who only knows Guido van Rossum by way of interviews his writing. Assuming your quote is what the original text said (I don't disbelieve you-- but nobody can see it to confirm) why would this have violated community standards? Is there some rule about not mentioning "un-persons" or something? It's very confusing. Edit: Answering my own question. There appears to be a kerfuffle afoot. Apparently the St…
He should have stayed on as BDFL. Now in the power vacuum a bunch of “activists” and political enthusiasts will take over and ruin the whole thing for everyone, or at least significantly slow down the progress
I'm glad he's stepped down. His opinion matters to be sure, but python needs to be a community developed language. He's a smart guy, and he matters still to the python community. There was a tremendous amount of frustration around the walrus operator, which led to him stepping down.
Who's the un-person you're not allowed to name? I want to register and post his / her name and get banned myself. Perhaps, we should all do this.
Why do you want to stick your opinion into something that you hadn't previously known about? What are you going to positively contribute to the discussion that will move things forward? How does that help?
> Why do you want to stick your opinion into something that you hadn't previously known about? What are you going to positively contribute to the discussion that will move things forward? How does that help?
A prudent response, the revised ending of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
This kind of drama seems to exist very specifically to programming language design and implementation. Probably has something to do with the codified formal structures necessary for various committees/ decision making groups. But it's interesting. This kind of stuff happens in ECMA, Rust, Python and a few others. Go seems to have escaped. Maybe because it's a corporate owned Lang? Similarly no drama in the Typescript…
No drama in C that I can remember either, because there is not much of a "community" in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe look at how it's worked out in practice, instead of just giving the theory. We have a two-party system, and that's just the way it is. https://alaskapublic.org/2024/05/29/ranked-choice-voting-tha... Gamesmanship: Alaska is a red state. Only RCV would result in a Dem being elected. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/alaska-ranked-choice-voting-mary... (not on archive, sorry. Here's the relevant part) Republicans have l…
This is actually a really interesting real-life instance showing that, in this particular case, RCV didn't achieve an optimal outcome. But what's a better voting system that would have achieve the presumably optimal outcome here (the less-polarizing GOP candidate Begich getting elected)? If we just compare to simply plurality voting, the outcome seems the same: Peltola got the highest vote of the 3, so in regular FPT…
You are assuming that a multi-party, multi-candidate election is a desirable norm. But that needs to be proven by you, not assumed.
In a pre-RCV system, the parties would choose their candidates, however they do it, and then the general election would pit one candidate of each party against each other, plus whatever other parties qualify for the ballot. The public has not accepted that that must be eliminated. It did make things hard for third parties, but so it goes. Prove that that's a bad thing.