His/her first statement was directly answered in the original comment. When that was noted, they swapped to undermining the basis for the comment. It’s pretty typical for techies to provide an opinion without basis and desire for it to be treated on the same level as those “in the know”
So everyone should always be included in conversations if desired, but coming in with an uninformed opinion spoken loudly, desiring more to be “right” than to come to an understanding, won’t typically be appreciated.
But how does any of that relate to banning signal links regardless? This is an effort to reduce self-organization and solidarity between affected normal people. It isn’t just USAID, 100,000+ people are being illegally terminated across the government (probationary employees who are only allowed to be fired for “performance,” but many/most have fine reviews and/or just started).
If a bunch of new people are being fired after having just moved or started new positions, why wouldn’t people try self organizing to support their coworkers who just had their lives upended?
My comment was simply in direct relation to the poster's comment about trustworthiness of government.
But as to your assertion of "illegally terminated," let me provide some context.
Not a single lawsuit has provided evidence of damages under law. One of the TROs has been shot down outright. This is key, as the judiciary requires law to be violated to intervene. They are not an HR department, and there are existing remedies for this in the administration. No such violations warranting legal action outside of the existing system have been shown.
Not only this, they went district "judge shopping" on a Friday night, two hours prior to close. Many of these judges are now being shown with extremely inflammatory political rhetoric showing bias, and one will have articles of impeachment drawn.
The circumstances surrounding this judicial action are so unprecedented, that when the Administration appealed showing evidence of fraud and illegal behavior, they "asked" the judge if they should allow it. The point of this is to show the frivolity of the suit: not only does the judiciary not determine Executive Power under Article II, they're asking the judge if the judge should take executive action to break the law.
While law is subject to interpretation, it is not clear (and I do not believe) these employees are being terminated illegally, the least of which is they have yet to describe the legal circumstances under which their termination is unlawful. Unlike common wisdom, the federal judiciary is not-coequal with the Legislature and the Executive; the Supreme Court is. Article III specifies that federal courts called "inferior" courts are subject to the leisure of Congress. These courts have been disbanded twice in history and do not hold the power that popular culture thinks they do.
That’s true relative to a VC backed startup, but not necessarily true for bootstrapped or startups looking to create sustainable companies. Look at base camp for instance
Why? It fosters competition and considering Tesla was heavily subsidized during its early years, it makes sense its competitors should have similar shots
Subsidies should not be used to decide winners and losers. There should be an equal playing field for all companies. When the government starts deciding winners instead of the market, things start falling apart fast.
Disagreed, the smoke impact alone affects huge swaths of high density (and deep blue) regions like the Bay Area. Additionally, controlled burns are most necessary in areas near density like the counties ringing the bay (that are still quite blue).
Depending on the severity of the fire (and wind conditions), defensible space will increase the chance your house survives but won’t save it. In Sonoma county, fires hopped over vineyards due to the high winds carrying embers and stuff actively burning hundreds of feet
Wind can spread fire in surprising ways. Here in Norway a town experienced a fire getting out of control[1]. It was in the middle of winter and had been freezing outside for a long time, and was around -10C (13F) when the fire started[2].
Thanks to the wind, the fire managed to jump a distance of 130 meters (426 feet) across an ice rink and set fire to the watering truck.
In the cases where this is important, you can use pointers. Go allows you to make pointers to primitives as well (making the zero value nil) so you can explicitly define those edge cases.
You’d be surprised how infrequently that’s actually a concern though.
Using pointers feels horrible as a workaround though because it completely muddies the intent. Is it a pointer because it could be zero or <not set>, is it a pointer for performance reasons, is it a pointer because the function mutates it? To me it flies directly in the face of Go's desire to keep things simple and easy to reason about.
> You’d be surprised how infrequently that’s actually a concern though
I admittedly don't write a huge amount of Go, but I run into this fairly often any time I'm dealing with user input. Something like an optional numeric input is not at all uncommon.
What? That is actually an everyday concern and devs assuming that information is not needed will bring pain down the road.
Just two cases of the top of my head: working with databases and json interop with other systems that actually do differentiate. And the second one should not happen, but people do make assumptions and sometimes those are inherently incompatible with how golang works.
