(I did not read TFA) Or maybe underdeveloped is better? No, that’s not a loaded word hear me out: the syntax is very unobtrusive and minimal if you ignore the whole HTML superset thing. So people can just start using it. Everyone wants to write bullet lists and some emphasis, a code block if they program. Only later do you want maybe a little more, some footnotes, maybe even admonitions. But that’s just a little extra. The syntax is already pretty minimal; there’s room for a little extra like using `^` (`[^1]`) for footnotes. So one extension uses that. Oh and maybe another extension uses something else. But whatever, it’s a trivial difference. Okay now some book-publishing Markdown has become quite different from some static website builder Markdown and it’s kind of annoying to have to keep the differences in mind because you have a blog but you are also writing a book. And it turns out that implementing Markdown in a way that doesn’t have dozens of weird corner cases is annoying because the whole inline markup thing wasn’t specified that well.
It’s like a microcosm of the burden of code. You publish some Perl script that happens to catch on. It’s good enough; any immediate problems are really trivial. Ten years later though they are annoying. But a new lightweight markup variant? Yeah, we should make it close to compatible with “Markdown” because everyone knows Markdown. Maybe specifically GitHub Markdown. Because if it doesn’t render on GitHub it isn’t real.[1] And so it perpetuates through microgenerations.
Problem here being that those terms aren't used as defined in regular discourse. Language changes and casual use differs from academic use.
When on an american-centric board anybody writes about "communism", I assume they refer to anything from marxism to stalinism to socialism to democratic socialism to social democracy up to anything non-hyper-capitalist. Not great, but sadly something to be taken into consideration.
Especially when looked at in context - parent was criticizing the EU initiative by essentially claiming something like that leads to a kind of monoculture like in a planned economy reminiscent of "communism", here probably meaning stalinism, from what I assume is a radical libertarian position. Which tells me the person is likely american, implying a rather ... minimal awareness of the nuance here.
Please, look at the actual comment chain and it should be rather trivial to make out what everybody is talking about. Does your comment really add value here?
The fundamental reason why terms are confused is because malicious
actors (bad faith) intentionally set up to at best muddy the waters
and at worst associate things they fight against with the worst
adjectives. That doesn’t reflect on anyone present right here, just a
process that took decades.
I don’t care if someone “doesn’t know” about the nuance when they
breathlessly throw back with One Cereal For Everyone Decided By The
State. Come on.
> Please, look at the actual comment chain and it should be rather trivial to make out what everybody is talking about. Does your comment really add value here?
I can understand that you think my reply is pedantic noise. That’s
simply because we have different goals and things that we intend to
communicate. I’m content with setting the record straight. You
apparently want to calmly explain the difference between apparent
Stalinism and Bernie Sanders-style Socialism.
I think I am able to make out what people are talking about. But you
can’t seem to, right in this context, imagine that we all have different
goals ourselves about what we wish to get out of commenting here.
This is as usual confused. People keep discussing communism as if they were (via analogy) talking about capitalism being about men in suites with fake smiles, green paper, bank vaults, and powerpoint presentations. Every time people have to respond with paragraphs upon paragraphs just unrolling all that nonsense.
Try to update your knowledge on the subject instead of talking like an alien in Trafalgar Square.
> From a strategy perspective, probably the last thing Israel/USA want to do is give the Iranian regime a common enemy to rally around in the midst of a protest that might plausibly over throw the Iranian regime.
They attacked Iran a little while ago. But now they are playing it cool like a cucumber?
There wasn't really any sort of plausible protest movement going on at the time, and the strikes did result in an upswell of regime support in the short term.
It was advantagous for them to strike when they did, so they did. Its much less advantageous in this moment, so it seems less likely they will now. Or at least not overtly.
> But now they are playing it cool like a cucumber?
Well yes. Countries tend to do things they think will make them more powerful. Sometimes that means blowing shit up, but that is not always the right play.
Counter-intuitive? The primary motivation for fretting about Brain Drain (whether it is true or not is secondary) is because the people who fret about it are educated professionals, precisely the people who are prone to build their identity around the idea that society thrives and succumbs based on their own existence.
The same people who have unironically latched onto the idea of Meritocracy. A concept/idea that was literally conceived as a parody.
All correct. But something needs to be frontloaded.
1. Even if removing <bad government> would be good for that country, that doesn’t give some other state the right to do it. We let these entities get away with murder because they are our friends and they have the biggest guns, that’s it.
2. Always interrogate the real reasons why a state is doing it.
Now only after that we get to the facts like all those times it ended horribly for the people that <state> was supposed to help.
My outsider understanding: Google AI (a Google team which Jeff Dean ran) was merged with DeepMind to create Google DeepMind (a subsidiary of Alphabet, like Google).
Demis Hassabis is the CEO of Google DeepMind and Jeff Dean is now the Chief Scientist of Google.
I joined Google in mid-1999, and I'm currently Google's Chief Scientist, focusing on AI advances for Google DeepMind and Google Research. My areas of focus include machine learning and AI and applications of AI to problems that help billions of people in societally beneficial ways. I have a broad variety of interests, including machine learning, large-scale distributed systems, computer systems performance, compression techniques, information retrieval, application of machine learning to search and other related problems, microprocessor architecture, compiler optimizations, and the development of new products that organize information in new and interesting ways.
reply