Nobody that uses bit flags do it because they think it makes them look clever. If anything they believe it looks like using the most basic of tools.
> One should not have to worry about solar flares!
Do you legitimately believe that a bool is immune to this? Yeah, I get this a joke, but it's one told from a conceit.
This whole post comes off as condescending to cover up a failure to understand something basic.
I get it, someone called you out on it at some point in your life and you have decided to strike back, but come on... do you really think you benefit from this display?
I made a concerted effort to understand the code before I made any effort to adapt it to the repo I was working on. I'm glad I did (although honestly, it wasn't in the remotest bit necessary to solve the task at hand!)
> I can try. Have you ever played competitive sports against a kid? You start to feel bad after a while. Winning comes easy, but you're worried that the kid might hurt themselves in over-exertion. In truth, the kid literally cannot make a decision that will beat you. You're the best. You know this. It's not fair.
If online gaming is any indication, what you are describing is largely not the way the most vocal people feel. It's more generally, "let's actively hunt down little kids to ruthlessly defeat and record it while mocking them so we can make ourselves internet celebrities!" and "if I can't do it myself, at least I can watch this other guy mow down kids with no chance of competing and cheer him on!"
There are exceptions of real skill of course, but those exceptions are what the others are desperately trying to emulate by seeking out weaker opponents. Introspection is going to be a hard sell for those others.
Just to say up front, I think you are the only one that gets it here and am not criticizing you, but the answer in question could also be read that way (of course with the excuse that "the other guy did it first!").
Am I the only one that didn't read either that way? I think a lot of biases are hanging out in this conversation.
To be fair, the person you are replying to didn't use the argument you are describing. They stated it felt gross and then went into detail of the actual argument:
> He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.
That is noticeably different than stating, "it feels gross so don't do it".
What you're calling their "actual argument" is also a bad argument. The original proposed rule (which amounts to "Don't do stuff if someone powerful can likely punish you for it") doesn't distinguish between commercial opportunists and real activists or whistleblowers, so their "actual argument" is spurious.
It also seems designed to shut down criticism of the original proposed rule -- or at least that's the only interpretation I can ascribe to it. This is bad because that original proposed rule is bad (in my opinion) and deserves criticism. Ihe best kind of criticism of any rule is "Let's try this other input, and see if you still agree with the conclusion".
Haha, of course the original comment doesn't distinguish... that was the whole reason for pointing it out. It was done specifically to separate the two sets of actors for comparison.
It "being designed to shut down criticism" is a wildly subjective take at best and at worst way more spurious than anything they or I am suggesting. I think your bias is showing and you are doing everything in your power to avoid addressing the point that "he was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower."
> the point that "he was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower."
This "point" isn't connected in any way to the original proposed rule, which is what is under examination here. So when the GP sought to test that rule by applying it to a different type of person, this "point" does not amount to an objection -- it's simply irrelevant.
It's simple enough, it's just nonsensical. You don't get to declare rules for discussion of a topic. When someone proposes something, it is valuable to explore how it fits in different scenarios. I don't think I can make that any simpler for you, and frankly, I don't know why I'd need to explain that to an adult acting in good faith.
So would you like to address the topic or would you rather continue playing pretend with imaginary rule sets for conversation?
Ironically, it's you who is attempting (and failing) to shut down criticism instead of addressing it.
I am just trying to understand this and not make any claim, so bear with me.
Let's say we have a cylinder with a hemispherical top instead of a sphere.
Say the two objects were thrown directly from the base of the cylinder towards what would be the equivalent of north on the hemisphere. Relative to each other they would be moving perfectly parallel and the distance between them would not be changing.
Once they reach the hemispherical section they would still be moving parallel to one another at the same speed but the distance between them would start to shrink, wouldn't this be the equivalent of acceleration due to gravity? Movement towards each other started at 0 and increased, right?
Deflection, whataboutism, sealioning with a side of demanding sources for what is essentially the use of a greater than sign.