I use two text manipulation plugins in sublime text all the time. I did not manage to have the functionality in zed, which made be renounce to use it:
- Evaluate, a plugin that evaluates the selections as python expressions and replaces them by their respective results. I added "iota" as a variable in the evaluation context, that gives me the current selection index (like iota in go). With that, so many math or text manipulations can be done in bulk.
- Alignment, to align all my cursor into a vertical column by adding spaces.
Moreover, the law literally says that contracts are considered as laws but only applicable to co-contractants (at least in France it's written like that). So it's the same thing, just with a different scope and precedence on the hierarchy of norms.
I have some of these usb keys, and I remember having remounted the device rw on linux, and the device failed with an io error when I attempted to write. So if I'm correct, the driver was configured as if the key was rw, but it failed because the hardware switch was ro.
So I believe that it is an actual hardware lock, in addition to the os having the ro/rw status info.
If someone is interested, Kanguru have faster models than the one linked (which I have too), which is a little slow by today's standard.
I would not know how that works, but I can recall a "strange" order of judicial events in the Alstom buyout by General Electric. Frédéric Pierucci was incarcerated for some weird foreign bribery charges, refused to be an FBI informant, and was released once Alstom was sold. He wrote a book about it. It really seems he was held as an economic hostage.
So when you learn about that, it's easier to think that the justice branch is much much closer to the executive branch than what it seems.
If I were the French government and Frédéric Pierucci were taken hostage why would I give a flying somethingorother. What leverage did the USA gain from holding this man? Ok, if they had taken Macron's daughter, or a bus full of french school children I might buy it... but a energy company exec?
Indeed (to steal wording from the Wikipedia article) if I had been in charge in France and really thought this was happening I'd have taken some hostages of my own ! They would have been arrested on drugs and sex charges, I'd have had the security services fabricating lots of juicy stuff etc etc etc.
When you imprison someone until they become a spy in the company you're trying to buy, do you really think there is no outcome where you might gain leverage?
I am using it, and I find it provides good services overall. Much more flexible than traditional banks. I contacted the customer service once and it responded.
I have not used the API, but I looked at it at some point and it seemed capable of doing what you could do in the official app.
I don't know why, but the word 'eugenics' is enough to trigger a thought-terminating cliché. Maybe the GP was being tongue-in-cheek, maybe not, but it's always a strong reaction to this word.
I understand it was used as an excuse to justify genocide, but I don't understand why the concept of eugenics is viewed as profoundly immoral by itself.
I get that it's a slippery slope, and that's a valid reason to ban it, but I never see it formulated that way, only a "NO! NEVER!!" non-argument.
We've always been fighting diseases, tried to better our condition, but if we're using genetics to prevent lethal diseases it's suddenly immoral? (Not saying it's what was talked about above, just using a clear cut example here). I really don't get it. I find on the contrary that not preventing horrible painful diseases on purpose, on the basis of us not wanting to feel uneasy, is what could be called immoral. I think that at least for clear cut cases, it should be debated.
It's a little bit like transhumanism: a lot of people use glasses, or prosthesis without any issues. It's already transhumanism IMO, but people do not label it that way, so that's accepted, while the word transhumanism itself is vehemently rejected.
If the history of the world has taught us anything, it's that any philosophical argument that justifies taking action to "improve" people is inherently dangerous. Eventually such ideas take political form.
I can't think of a single example from history where such philosophies weren't eventually used to justify horrible actions.
Transhumanism is great if your transhuman. Nazism was great for the Nazis. I don't see much of a difference between the two for the rest of us.
I get that, I understand very well it's a slippery slope. For me it's just a cursor, whereas I think that people pretend there is no cursor, only absolute values.
I guess it's a question of semantics. Because by reading you, using my definition of transhumanism, you're implying that wearing glasses is already a step too far (because it's using technology to improve/fix yourself). But of course I don't think that's what you believe. So clearly, these words are tainted, because we're not talking about the same thing really.
Not knocking you or general discussion on transhumanism. There's different definitions, and I haven't read up on it enough. Agree that reading glasses isn't a problem, sorry if that's what you thought I was arguing.
The original comment was talking about improving people through genetics and brain tinkering. That's just a modern form of Eugenics, and I thought that we all agreed that this line of thinking doesn't reach anywhere constructive and is best avoided.
Very delicate stuff were talking about here. I'm all for helping cure disease, but some argue that weakens the overall gene pool and opens up the door for superbugs etc. Win a short term battle, lose the war. The stakes are very very high when talking about this stuff. Move fast and break things... just... NO. Much caution.
As I get older, I feel the time is ripe for when the younger generation will make vast sweeping decisions which will end in them relearning the lessons of the past the hard way. Too many voices saying "This time its different" echoing all around me. Too many people willing to tear down too much that has been built. If history isn't learned the easy way, it will be learned the hard way. I guess I'm just throwing out some caution here when dealing with blanket statements about improving humans.
No sorry, I went on a tangent and generalized without stating it clearly.
I just wanted to argue that by my definition, we are already in a tranhumanistic (and eugenistic) society, so we should not spare ourselves these debates instead of blanket statements and be afraid of concepts.
I probably appeared as pro go-nuts-on-brain-generics, whereas I actually agree we should be very cautious. The law of unintended consequences is indeed a strong argument.
I think it has meaning after all. I would rewrite as this: "HEX directly targeted investors globally, using advertisements placed in football stadiums (especially those involved in the English premier league). These ads boasted about an 11,500% asset price increase in 4 months"
I like to translate improbable phrasing into proper sentences. It is a fine hobby, like archeology, but on other people's mind (or maybe AI output, who knows in 2023). :)
I think you are enamoured with the idea of being neutral, like a pure-wisdom spirit above the melee, wisely noticing the hypocrisy of the west and reminding us the right for any people to live as they see fit.
Well I think this is just your ego flattering yourself.
Because this is such a clumsy false dichotomy that it's frankly hard to accept that people can actually think sincerely what you said.
How can you not see that the ancient way the talibans want to enforce is just another oppressive standard forced on the population, especially women?
What if I am an afghan woman who wants to live based on another perfectly valid ancient way of life, but different than the talibans'? Must I shut up or be killed? Who decides exactly? Whose ancient way is the most legitimate? Could it be perhaps _any_ that does not oppress to death people?
Perhaps people are just saying that anything less oppressive than this horror is what should be? Perhaps that's what people mean when they talk about human rights? And perhaps that reality has NOTHING to do with the west's hypocrisy or any misuse of the term 'human rights' you might encounter?
If I did start an open source project, I think I would do a very simple licensing that I have never encountered, like: "Dual licensing: Paid software now, and GPL starting 2032". I guess in the oss monetization list it is covered by "paid early access: Delayed open-sourcing".
The software source code is released day one, but it won't be a FOSS license until YEAR+N. The license switch will be automatic after the deadline.
That way I think I can have the best of both worlds: making sure development is paid (which is often necessary to sustain any large project) and any additional valuable development being be paid for, but also giving your customers the guarantee that they'll have an exit against vendor lock-in, and releasing in the long term to the FOSS community.
Basically I sell software normally, but commit to a future FOSS license at the same time. It's not unlike patents actually, at least what they should be.
- Evaluate, a plugin that evaluates the selections as python expressions and replaces them by their respective results. I added "iota" as a variable in the evaluation context, that gives me the current selection index (like iota in go). With that, so many math or text manipulations can be done in bulk.
- Alignment, to align all my cursor into a vertical column by adding spaces.
reply