>For example the FBI told social media companies the the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation
They didn't, they only gave a general warning to watch out for misinformation[1].
Facebook censored the Hunter Biden laptop story on their own volition. Zuckerberg mentioned FBI in that Rogan interview to muddy the waters and deflect responsibility. He didn't actually say that FBI ordered them to do anything.
None of that clears the FBI and others of wrongdoing, and more importantly none of it refutes my main thesis that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential to a functioning Democracy.
This explanation doesn't make much sense. If Ukraine maybe joining NATO in an unspecified future is such a big threat to Russia, then surely Finland joining it right now is an even bigger threat. Not to mention that Poland and the Baltic states already are NATO members.
Russia's security is guaranteed by nukes. Security definitely wasn't the reason why Russia has invaded Ukraine.
If security is guaranteed by nukes, why does the US threaten the Salomon Island? Placing missile defense systems close to the launch sites gives you the possibility to intercept them early in the boost phase when they are still slow. Having assets close to enemy borders in general gives you shorter reaction times. This is about tipping the scale somewhat in your favor, not ensuring your victory.
I am not qualified to judge the situation with Finnland, but not all neighbors are necessarily equal. Things like geography, for example, might play a role and Finnland in, Ukraine out might be more desirable than Ukraine in, Finnland out.
Russia is busy with Ukraine so can't deal with Finland however they have been talking tough and posturing.
NATO members are NATO members, attacking them after they've joined NATO an orginisation basically created to fight Russia would mean you go to war with all NATO members.
Russia's preference methodogly of defence is creating distance. With Ukraine, NATO would have been extremely close to Moscow. Finland is further away but they're still not happy about it.
NATO expanding into that region was well known to be something that would threaten Russia, since it was founded to fight Russia, to the point Joe Biden said decades ago[1], that Russia expanding into that region would cause conflicts.
>How is this censorship? They are a company and can do business with whoever they please.
Just because a private company does it, doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Of course, you may argue that it's in a good cause, but nonetheless, it's still censorship.
I feel XKCD 1357 has greatly contributed to the degradation of the discourse on this topic. The concept of free speech is not synonymous with the legal protections provided by American law.
Calling this[1] "an article about racist dog names" is a complete misrepresentation. It's a critique of a study published in Social Psychology Quarterly, which is an official journal of the American Sociological Association.
When I'm evaluating an open-source project, I always check the quality of its commit messages. I don't care about following a specific format or something, all that matters is whether they are informative or not.
Hello, I am the creator of the Odin programming language, and main architect of the codebase too. Being full of commits labelled "Fix <thing>" is absolutely fine and absolutely clear with all of the context of how the codebase operates.
Many of the things are "Fix #NNN` which means fixing a specific GitHub issue which usually has more information to it or has comments in the code, etc. There are many "Fix typo(s)" commits because I (and others) make a lot of typos; these are usually trivial/single-line fixes. Then it comes to the rest of "Fix ..." commits which are pretty much 1-2 line fixes of minor bugs; with large bugs having multi-line commit messages and many with huge comments within the code to explain everything.
Your metric of the quality of commit messages is not a bad one depending on the codebase, but it cannot be used blindly without knowing how that codebase operates. Especially comparing a mostly centralized codebases (like Odin) to very GNU-style decentralized codebases (all of the examples you gave).
Naturally, commit messages aren't the only criteria I'm using. But I wasted way too much time in my life on deciphering the purpose of 20+ year old commits to ignore this.
When I want to discard the opinions of HN commenters I always go for tired, worn-out references that I don’t even understand myself.
A commit message has a function which is directly applicable to the craft of programming and not something auxiliary like the aesthetic properties of a shed used by the bicycle commuters. Though in this case I would disagree with the GP since “Fix <thing>” might be a good enough commit message template.
How many developers are there? For single developer projects, commit messages have very little value compared to documentation and an extensive passing test suite.
As the project grows in contributors, the commit log gains value
According to GitHub, there are 132 contributors. Probably most of them were one-off drive-by PRs, but nonetheless, it's definitely not a one person project anymore.
Even if you're a solo dev, you will likely still have to debug your old code in the future. I'm sure most of HN is familiar with the Chesterton's fence. Proper commit messages aid you in understanding why the changes were made. This especially matters in complex codebases, like compilers.
Birth rates are low pretty much everywhere in the developed world, but South Korea is an outlier in how low they are. For example, Japan's fertility rate is 1.3, compared to Korea's 0.84. That's a huge difference.
It's possible there's something unique to South Korea that causes it. Perhaps it's mandatory 2 years of military service for males. Or maybe their famously judgmental culture. I don't know.
As an opposite data point: in Israel, military service of 3 years is mandatory for males, 2 years for females. Israel has BY FAR the highest fertility in the OECD. So military service probably isn't a strong correlation here.
> Among Jews, the TFR among Haredim has fluctuated around 7 children per woman since the 1980s, and around 2.5 children per woman among the secular and the traditional who identify as not religious. However, Haredi fertility in the 2007 to 2013 period was lower than in the 1990s, while fertility in the non-Haredi Jewish population has increased since then.
> Even among Jewish women who self-identify as secular and traditional but not religious, the combined TFR exceeds 2.2, making it higher than the TFR in all other OECD countries.
The fact that it's both men and women in Israel could be significant. I heard stories about people meeting their romantic partners in the army during the mandatory service.
Yah I could see that. Opposite sexes commingling during the strength of youth required for military duties and which also happens to coincide with peak fertility. I’m convinced that peak fertility and sexual urges during our 20s is no coincidence—-it’s our bodies screaming a large signal at us that this is the time. That strength and ability to pull all nighters sure comes in handy caring for a newborn. Taking on such a challenge 20 years past the peak without the aid of a 10 or 12 year olds helping hands is a high burden no doubt.
I’m starting to become more convince that economies which fundamentally squander this peak fertility moment will shoulder a burden that will lead to their demise. How long can we get the fertility timing wrong before we are no more? I guess we’re about to find out.
something unfortunate to keep in mind is your emotional intelligence at that age. it's clear an 18 year old is not as mentally prepared as even a 28 year old, let alone 30+ when your brain development has really hit its peak.
it's all fine and dandy to think people should be parents in their early 20s, but think about where you were at 20. did you stay with the same person? I think if you ran surveys in the west, you'd find a disproportionate amount who either didn't have anyone, or who broke up not long after. I like to think I'm a much kinder, calmer, and more self-aware person than I was at 18, or even 25.
at 30 you might be a more tired but hopefully at that point you've:
(1) dated enough to know what to look for in a partner;
(2) have found that partner who is a good match;
(3) have progressed enough in your work that you're less at risk at big economic suffering
I think people who try and save up in advance of kids are a little nutty - focus on your retirement, and emergency fund, they can borrow money. it's almost never an advantageous position for it to be paid off.
3 can definitely be solved by good policy. But I think it's just foolishness to suggest that people can start having kids whenever. At least in my experience and my peers' experience, finding the person who likes you enough to consider that is the blocker by a long shot. Everything else can be solved with money.
by the way, comments earlier about Israeli military service were interesting -- it makes sense to me as an accelerant in bonding, same as some university experiences. That was however not my experience in university undergrad...
The culture I came from in 20th century America somehow established this significant period of prolonged adolescence as it’s been called. So I think there is some growing up to do society wise so that folks are equipped to be in optimal biological alignment at the appropriate age and not waste time dilly dallying with 20 years of unproductive living. I don’t think this was always so in past centuries and certainly not intrinsic to the 20s demographic.
Maybe our newfound prologued lifespan gave the illusion we could shift fertility out into the suboptimal band of years indefinitely. But if our economy is structured in a way that demands this shift I have to think it comes at a long term cost where we become too top heavy so to speak and have increasingly diminished returns on how much reproduction we can sustain at those biologically suboptimal band of years with whatever guarantees that may come from deferring reproduction to that better time that may never actually come.
They didn't, they only gave a general warning to watch out for misinformation[1].
Facebook censored the Hunter Biden laptop story on their own volition. Zuckerberg mentioned FBI in that Rogan interview to muddy the waters and deflect responsibility. He didn't actually say that FBI ordered them to do anything.
[1] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-responds-...