pjhenry1216

Folks aren’t even able to get out of debt. Considering debt generally has a higher interest rate than savings, folks are even held back from saving. OP even mentioned that straight out. If you’re a disaster away from destitution, you aren’t investing money. Money years from now isn’t worth more than money today when your bills are due today.

I mean, your given example isn’t actually an example of your previous points. Its not a “every cloud has a silver linings” statement, it’s a “I still believe in God even when bad things happen. This isn’t proof of neither his non-existence or his non-caring.” Eve your example is a poor thought experiment because it assumes a limited power god who can only break your foot, but can’t actually prevent the drink driving accident in any less painful way.

It’s a “I’m going to pretend this was supposed to happen and is a good thing regardless of whether good things come from it.”

It’s the response to “earthquake kills 1000s”.

The other, less religious reasoning you provided is much more clear and less stretches with a lot better phrases. Even your descriptions would work better than providing the phrase itself to someone who is currently hurting. This phrase ultimately defends the bad thing as a good thing instead of telling the person shit happens, play the cards you were dealt, you can still win even when you’re coming from behind.

I refer you back to my original comment involving the impact of not having a good definition of death and what that causes.

Your definition does not clarify any of the resulting problems arising from trying to define all the other concepts.

It’s a good definition for some scenarios, but not at all or in any way, this one.

you’re looking for an absolute point,

Which is the crux of this whole conversation. We don’t have an actual definition of death. It’s all relative and changing over time.

The summary uses the term “vanilla JS” in a weird way. It’s just to further denote it’s not TypeScript because TypeScript is a language that essentially extends JavaScript. It’s not a framework. This is about language choice of TS vs JS inside large complex libraries only.

Libraries tend to have a need for generic typing due to the nature of being code used by other code. So you get a lot of syntax craziness involving Type parameters.

You can still use the libraries mentioned in a TS project. They’re just not written in TS. TS and JS can be in the same project. Moreover, it even states this isn’t about developers using TS in non-library projects.

yes, the definition changes. it used to mean one point. now it means a point 10 miles away. come on. simple substitution. if you define it only with relative terms then its poorly defined as there’s no actual concrete meaning. so you either have a poorly defined term or you have a term that has changed meaning over time. which still makes it poorly defined. i don’t know how else to explain it. so i’m going to leave it here. this is going in circles.

If the threshold changed, the actual definition changed. The same words to describe a different point. If the definition described two different things, its changed. That’s basic and simple reasoning. If a definition no longer describes the same thing, it’s because it’s actual meaning has changed.

That there are more than one definition is kind of the problem. And that you’d characterize any of them as “good” sounds more like a euphemism for “good enough for a particular scenario.”

it’s the irreversible stop of some activity.

This threshold has changed over time. So I don’t think it’s a good definition of it hasn’t always been the same point.

And the rest of your comment is just philosophy. You’re neither wrong nor right. Definition of self is not a concept there’s really any consensus over.

I mean, without defining what the self is and consciousness, it’s difficult to even define what death is from a consciousness point of view. A living meat bag doesn’t require brain activity either. There’s a whole range of things. So even assuming we have a good meaning of “death” is oversimplifying things.

Isn’t that almost what they suggested except starting at a different size and doing a binary search basically? You’re just starting the binary search after the first step of cutting into 5 lengths instead of 2.

Ah, well, I don’t think there’s any officially hosted versions on GitLab. I guess it depends on why they chose GitHub, but maybe some attempts can be made to have them migrate if given enough reason that they agree with. So any clones on those other sites would need to pull in from GitHub on their own accord. And unfortunately any MRs into them would need to be replicated on GitHub which I’m assuming is the reason you ask and therefore likely won’t be happy with the answer.

I know a big sticking point for many people is that all code on GitHub feeds into CoPilot.

I don’t understand how this would help anyone who’s still stuck on GitHub for whatever reason to be able to escape GitHub. GitHub likely won’t support this. I guess it depends on why someone is ‘forced’ to use GitHub still. I’ve seen different reasons mentioned.

Isn’t the official repo for Lemmy on GitHub?

I don’t know about “decentralized” as centralization is a driving influence in cost of marketing. Amazon is efficient because of every step of the way is centralized, from store front to the warehousing to the shipping. Sure there are some products that don’t ship by Amazon, but they’re usually at a cost disadvantage unless they’re unique. Plus payment processing is centralized and allows for consumer protections which wouldn’t be possible with something like crypto.

Amazon could be dethroned, but it would require very specific circumstances and unlikely wouldn’t be by a privacy minded entity.

Amazon is cheap because personal data subsidizes a lot. If they couldn’t sell targeted sponsor ads to you, they’d make that revenue up elsewhere.

No. They go through the ACH which is operated by NACHA. They don’t just have private deals between the two of them (I mean, I guess they can). I mean, you keep saying what about the rest of the standards and then naming a specific system. A system isn’t a standard. It’s possible you’re just using the wrong terminology and I’m completely misunderstanding you. But all banks in the US operate the same basic way. According to standards that are required to operate in the ACH plus to meet federal regulations. FDIC insured isn’t just all willy nily.

I am not on TikTok and it won’t play the whole video, so this does nothing. Its not a useful rebuttal. I’m fine if you want to cite your argument, but this is useless. Who goes around using TikTok as damn evidence. “Hey, look at this random stranger say something.”

Edit: transfers don’t generally fail unless there’s a lack of funds. And that isn’t the definition of standard anyway. Standards can be unreliable. And what is wrong with routing and account? Put together it contains much of the same info as an IBAN.

Not really. You can’t remove the last chain in a blockchain without effecting every single other block. Each block is modified every single time to include the hash of its child. Git is the other way. Each commit includes a hash of its parent. So you can always remove the last one and the branch would be none the wiser.

So git is the exact opposite direction in regards to hashing. It’s a chain, just not in the same way. That’s part of why blockchain transactions are so expensive and git commits are so cheap.

Again, US banks do. But SWIFT and IBAN are used almost exclusively for international transactions, EU included. It’s their whole purpose. SEPA exists alongside SWIFT and does not rely on SWIFT. It’s why is so much more restrictive and can only do euro to euro.

The US banks are standardized. That’s not the problem. It’s really control and cost. Like right now, FedNow still costs 4 cents per transaction which is expensive. ACH costs about half that. But it’s also controlled by NACHA instead of the government.

In any case, I’m about as far down this rabbit hole as I’d like to go. We at least agree on blockchains… “usefulness”.

You can tamper all you want with git even if you aren’t the only holder. You can make it to any other repos cant merge back in. If you waste a lot of time, you can make commits that will erase known work on other repos. You don’t need to replace it. You can just rewind. Blockchain requires each block to contain a hash of the previous. Git doesn’t really do this. It’d be extremely inefficient. Imagine every commit changes every previous commit.

Blockchains are more than merkle trees. Blockchains is a technology from 2008. Git is much older and again, this is obvious as Torvalds isn’t credited with the invention of blockchain.

Git is not tamper resistant.