From the Rust website: "Rust is a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast". It says: blazingly fast. What more do you need? Benchmarks? Pft.
No, I don't. I think it's well-correlated, but that correlation varies and people's estimation of it is likely subject to a severe Dunning-Kruger effect - most people likely consider themselves to be above-average judges of character.
Now, as for causality, the more social and economic opportunities you withhold from ex-felons - never allowing them to vote, continually expanding the scope declaration requirements, etc. - the more attractive an option recidivism into criminal activity becomes, in proportion to the degree to which you discount their likely future contribution to society. Put another way, if there's no benefits on offer for going and staying on the straight-and-narrow, then why bother?
The belief you're expressing is known as the 'fundamental attribution error' - a tendency to overestimate the explanatory power of inherent characteristics and discount the role of circumstances. This is no wiser than taking the view that everyone is fundamentally good and that they're mindlessly conditioned by social factors.
It may be fundamental attribution error. Has that been conclusively demonstrated in this particular case? If so, what proportion of the propensity to commit crime is based on circumstances? Presumably not 100%, considering psychopaths exist and are quite difficult to rehabilitate.
As far as I'm aware, there's not any conclusive data to show that rehabilitative approaches are much better for recidivism. I'm in favor of the state doing whatever it can to make a more peaceful society. But that does not extend to assuming in my personal life that treating felons as if they were not makes them equally safe to people not already known to have committed serious crimes.
Well, time to update your priors. There's a lot of good evidence about the impact of different strategies on recidivism rates. Here's a fairly recent comprehensive overview: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/023358.pdf
Ah, downvotes for supplying actual research, gotta love it.
Thanks for the link. I could not find the part where it said that rehabilitative approaches significantly reduce the risk of reoffense, but I'll assume it's in there somewhere. Nonetheless, I don't see anything in the document suggesting that, even with rehabilitative approaches, the risk is low and it is safe for private citizens to engage with ex-cons as they do with non-ex-cons.
> I'm in favor of the state doing whatever it can to make a more peaceful society.
This sort of thinking has historically led to a lot of problems. It is also trivially false. For example, the United States would be a perfectly peaceful place if all Americans were dead. Would you implement such a solution?
I'm mostly nitpicking here, but you're talking of a peaceful location, whilst the quoted text talks of a peaceful society.
Assuming a society must consist of humans, a peaceful society depends on the existence of a society and thus the existence of humans, so you can't just kill everyone.
I think that's a very idealistic thing to believe. But I'll bet you wouldn't wager your retirement savings on a financial planner previously convicted of embezzlement, your children on a nanny with sex conviction, or your life under the scalpel of a doctor who had done time for criminal negligence.
And if you would, good on ya. You can be the one to give everyone second chances.
A bit ironic, no? That such a thing, almost exclusively useful for French people, has to come from a non-native speaker. And that the only obviously French comment so far is a critique about the style...
We sure do know how to complain. :)
(slightly unfair, of course---obviously the complaint about grammar had to come from a native speaker; who else would notice it in the first place..?)
The irony of course being that I thought to myself as I was reading it "that's some mighty easy-to-understand French". A long time ago I used to visit francophone Africans in a UK asylum centre who were always notably easier to understand than the French.
Oh no, this kind of grammatical errors show that it's clearly a native French speaker. We French suck at our own language - partly because it is fairly complicated, and partly because people don't bother learning.
What sexualities do you think he's talking about? Surely not all of them. But he doesn't explicitly say which groups, if any, he supports discrimination against.
