Republicans: literally write “finish them” on Israeli bombs.

Lemmy.ml users: the important thing to learn here is not to vote for the more leftwing candidate. Only by giving electoral success to the most right wing party will we convince the more moderate party to move left. They will see the right win and all the polling show that right wing policies win elections and will realise that they should do the opposite of what the republicans did to gain power.

Trump: bans Muslims from the USA as one of the first things he does as president. Muslims: he’s our guy!

History teaches us that when people are desperate they are more likely to turn to the right for solutions. That’s why right wingers like to keep them desperate. It’s not in their interests to make things better.

Can verify: am Brit.

Liz truss tried the libertarian experiment, sidestepped the Office for Budget Responsibility that her own party set up so that they were prevented from announcing the forthcoming shitshow (because she correctly thought they would be doom and gloom about it), tanked the economy in less than one week, blamed the media for it, blamed not going far enough for it, blamed the Chancellor of the Exchequer for it, sacked him, said she wouldn’t resign but was famously outlasted by a lettuce.

Now she simps for the republicans but is largely ignored by them. She still maintains she was right, which is par for the course for idiot lying right wingers.

They elected him because inflation was awful in Argentina for a long time. He said he would improve it, but he made it much, much worse. It’s starting to stabilise back down to the original awfully high levels he inherited from the terrifyingly stratospheric levels he took it to, simply because the people really have no money left and aren’t buying anything and the shopkeepers can’t raise prices too fast, so of course he’s claiming that his policies are working because it’s getting better.

Economists suspect that shutting down the whole economy for lack of cash after astronomical inflation isn’t the strong long term solution to inflation that the libertarians like to claim they’re creating.

He got rid of rent controls and other price controls. Because it would fix inflation, apparently.

So yeah, he got elected because the economy has been bad for a long time and they haven’t tried far right in quite a while. It’s got even worse of course.

Can’t help wondering what you’re deleting here.

Yes, I’m asking you to label all the drinks that contain alcohol with the word alcohol. Just that.

Everything that’s Not Suitable For Work as NSFW. Simple.

Would you expect me to be vegetarian just in case the person next to me in a restaurant doesn’t want to see anyone eating meat?

I would expect you to put the word “chicken” on your chicken nuggets, and not argue that they had tofu in them or that they belonged in the vegan isle at the supermarket.

scantily clad busty teen-style cartoons … solely for …

“mildly arousing”

This you?

“IT’S YOUR PROBLEM”

Exactly

And you took exception to me saying you were indifferent?!

NSFW means Not Suitable For Work. Please use it. Please.

Are you missing the part where I literally do?

Yup. There’s a shitton of pedo-adjacent crap you posted without a NSFW tag. The scantily clad busty teen-style cartoons. You’re right here arguing against tagging it. Yeah, I’m missing you tagging it. We wouldn’t be arguing if you agreed to tag it. WTF?

Your remark about music communities is so off the point, because, and here’s the thing: it’s fine for work.

You’re not getting downvoted and reported, you’re getting your communities blocked, as per advice I think you handed out yourself in the “IT’S NOT MY PROBLEM, IT’S YOUR PROBLEM. CURATE YOUR OWN FEED” phase which is why I have to be signed in on lemmy at work, which I’d rather not.

You might have a point if I were drowning in downvotes and reports. But I’m not. But if I were, I absolutely would change how I do things.

Whole instances hiding your content because of persistent complaints and you pretend there’s no issue.

You’ll respond with all kinds of evasions but you won’t accept that you’re polluting the fediverse with your untagged NSFW “mildly arousing” busty teen-style girl cartoons.

NSFW means Not Suitable For Work. Please use it. Please.

But no, you are utterly selfish and won’t listen.

One person upvoting your content justifies everything to you.

Selfish.

You are simply refusing to tag content which is Not Suitable For Work as NSFW, polluting other people’s streams with your “mildy arousing” pictures of young girls.

And yes, you are completely indifferent to the effect on the wider fediverse of thousands of users because you’re working so tirelessly to meet the untagged fetish of your (checks numbers) 36 upvoters on the post linked above.

It’s REALLY selfish of you.

This person is acting as if I never mark anything NSFW and don’t care who it affects.

That’s a straw man. What I claim is that whenever people ask that your NSFW “mildy arousing” pictures of girls are tagged appropriately as NSFW you refuse, that you have a really high bar for what counts as NSFW, that that bar is far higher than most workplaces, and that you simply don’t care and refuse to tag.

And yes, you are completely indifferent to the effect of your actions on others. Whack-a-mole is the right description of how we have to respond.

You literally ask for “mildly arousing” content in the sidebar on the link I clicked from elsewhere in this thread, so please don’t make out that that’s a small minority of what you make and promote.

You don’t address the points about NSFW meaning not suitable for work because you don’t care and you don’t have good points to make about it.

All this, by your own admission, is because when you tag stuff as NSFW it gets fewer views, as if the internet owes you its eyes. You’re like those irritating ads about meeting attractive women in your area. You don’t care whether it’s appropriate when I’m browsing SFW content, you just want the views.

No, it’s completely indifference to other people’s desire to use NSFW to mean Not Suitable For Work.

I certainly don’t work in an environment where having cartoons of scantily clad girls in suggestive poses on my phone screen in my lunch hour is in any way acceptable, and I don’t think I’m unusual in that.

You don’t care about that, you’ve made that very clear in the past, you just care about how many views you can get for your adolescent-look content which is “mildly arousing” - your words, not mine.

I don’t know why you think “mildly arousing” is somehow safe content to browse at work.

So yeah, you’ve expressed absolute indifference to other people’s need for a clean feed by refusing to tag your content appropriately. You harm the fediverse by trying to impose your will,

Wow. This would never have happened on reddit! Go us!

That’s a much better response!

Oh yeah, rust has to win, but I think this was an empathy-free paradigm war masquerading as an innocent request for information. I think trying to bolt rust into Linux is a strategic error. It’s going to cause quite a lot of unnecessary friction and an awful lot of unnecessary technical complication and will be absolutely riddled with complexities and ways of doing things that are inherently unsafe. Instead build a posix compliant OS as rust from the bottom up and it’ll knock the spots off Linux and will be rock solid. It’ll take well over a decade but it’ll be far, far better.

That was a low effort response to a well written detailed post that took quite a while to write. At least deal with some of the issues raised, don’t just ignore everything they said and dismiss them as willfully ignorant.

TL;DR: Vast culture clash that rust guys didn’t perceive and C guys hated and false assertion that “you don’t need to learn rust” based on inexplicably naive lack of understanding that maintenance might be necessary.

If someone builds a rust api on top of your C code inside your project, you have exactly five choices: (1) preserve the assumptions the rust code is making (2) only change your code if you have a rust expert to collaborate with handy (3) edit the rust code yourself (4) break the rust assumptions leading to hard to find bugs (5) break the build. The C guys hated all five of those options, and the rust guys told them they didn’t need to worry their pretty little heads about it. ON, they weren’t as dismissive as that, but they either didn’t understand those as issues or didn’t care about them or dismissed them.

The rust guys were asking the C guys to tell them the semantics so that they could fix the type signatures for their rust functions and the C guys were reluctant to do that because they wanted to be able to change the semantics of that turned out to be useful to them. They didn’t want to commit so something that was documented in a way they weren’t familiar with because they felt that even if they wanted to, they couldn’t ensure their code was compliant with this specification going forward because they didn’t understand the rust type signature fully. (They got hung up on the self argument and launched a rant against OOP.)

The rust guys knew instinctively that the Result return type meant that the operation could fail and could tell from the two arguments to that both in what ways it could fail and every kind of answer it could produce if it succeeded, but the C guys found almost none of that obvious. This was for just one function in the rust API, but it also radically changed the way of doing it. This one rust call replaced the whole algorithms of ask, check answer, if none, check this and that, otherwise do this blah blah blah. The C guys are used to keeping everything lean and simple with a single purpose and were being asked to think of a while collection of procedural knowledge and edge cases with a handle everything monolith. But they were audibly reluctant to commit to that being all the edge cases because they don’t think of all of those tests as one thing and instinctively wouldn’t write something that checks for all of the edge cases because (a) in a lot of circumstances the code they’re writing only needs to know that there was a problem and will give up quickly and move on and (b) they want to be able to freely choose to add other edge cases in the future like they normally do without having to worry about the rust code breaking.

They weren’t complaining that they were being asked to write rust, they were complaining that they didn’t want to learn rust, and they were complaining this because they could see that to preserve all the rust API type signatures they would have to understand them, the expectations around them and memory safety principles, so that a rust programmer in the future wouldn’t have to change the rust type signature.

The rust guys would have gained a lot more traction by just asking the C guys to keep a bunch of comments up to date detailing the semantics and error checking procedures, and promising to edit their rust API if the C code changes, but I suspect they didn’t ask for that because they know that no guarantees come from a comment and they want to be sure that the rust code works across all the possible scenarios and in rust culture, that is always documented in the type system where it can be enforced.

The rust guys spoke like it was self evident that having a monolithic API with a bunch of stuff guaranteed by the rust compiler was best, but seem not to have realised that this is a massive culture clash because the C guys come from a culture of rejecting the idea of compiler guarantees anyway (because they have long had confidence in their ability to hand optimize their code to be faster than some prescriptive compiler’s output and look down on people who choose to have the guardrails up).

They felt like they were being asked to help write an interface definition in a monolithic style that they have always rejected, to achieve goals that they have long resisted, in a language that they find alien, with no guarantees for them that the rust guys were going to stick around to agree and implement the rust changes necessary if they changed the C code, and with no confidence that they understood what would count as a breaking change at the rust level.

This perceived straightjacket made them particularly cross. They complained about the inability to change their C code and its semantics and the need to learn enough rust to understand quickly what not to change, but they didn’t want to not change things and would need to edit the rust API at the same time as editing the C code if they didn’t want the rust build to break, and then there would be even more downstream changes from that, so realistically they would need not only to be able to understand the rust type signatures, they would need to be able to edit both the type signatures and the functions themselves, and basically maintain all the downstream rust, and they would want to be sure they were writing efficient rust, well aware that it took them decades to get to the level of extreme efficiency they write in pure C, a much simpler language.

The rust guys said “Just tell us what your code means so we can write our type signatures”, but the C guys didn’t want to help create for themselves a prison whose walls were of a strange and intricate design they found hard to perceive, made out of materials they didn’t have experience working with. They felt like the first guys were asking them how all the doors, windows, chimneys, air vents etc of the house that they built by hand would ever be used, so they could encase it in a stainless steel shell and make it part of a giant steel city. The C guys said “but I might want to build an extension or a wider garage!” They claimed that the C guys didn’t have to learn how to weld or manufacture steel sheets, and that their house would be much safer, but for some reason this didn’t win the C guys round to the plan, and there’s a bunch of people online calling the C guys tech luddites for not liking the whole thing and saying that they were incorrect that they needed to learn rust just because the rust guys made that claim, but that claim is actually completely incorrect unless you think that it’s OK to stop the project compiling with your pull request or you think that changes to the C code should be banned wherever a rust API is built on top of it.

I saw the clip previously. The rust guys are absolutely assuming that the C guys would go for something because (a) the compiler guarantees it’s memory safe (b) the semantics would be encoded in the type system. They demonstrate this using rust terminology and algebraic data types. Algebraic data types are the bees knees, (but not with that syntax and clumsiness), and compiler guarantees are the bees knees, but that’s not how a C programmer who’s middle aged sees the world, it just isn’t. Your typical middle aged C programmer grew up telling pascal programmers that automatic array bounds checking is for wimps and real men use pointer arithmetic and their programs run five times as fast. They were always right because their programs did really run significantly faster, but now rust comes along and its fast and safe. Why wouldn’t C programmers like it? Because the speed was the excuse and the lack of guardrails was the real reason they liked C.

I said it’s a massive culture clash that the rust folks didn’t realise they were having because they just assume that “memory safe” wins people round, whereas C folks value their freedom from automatic compiler-based safety, and here you are, sounding like a rust person, saying it isn’t a culture clash at all and that the rust folks are right about memory safety and the C folks are just being irresponsible.