Do you think the refs are nearly as biased against the Warriors as they are for the lakers? Or is it more likely that the warriors shoot from outside a lot and play fairly aggressive defense?
Defense morons should be a more common term. These guys have been given free money for generations in VA and can barely do anything other than suck cash from the government. I’m an American it’s disgraceful they are children compared to my Asian colleagues.
It’s just a fact it really changed my perspective. American as a people have a learned helplessness mostly because of wealth, when asked to do something they gripe about the boss making excuses and acting juvenile. Asians just do the thing.
if they're getting free money, they're not morons!
humans think we're the most intelligent because we built New York while the dolphins have just been hanging around having a good time. the dolphins think they're the most intelligent for the same reason.
Google recently had a press release where they decided to make the silly and largely pointless claim,
> [Willow] lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes
There is nothing illegal about this, but this silly attempt at making the press release seem even more important than it was (which was unnecessary anyways) wound up detracting a bunch of attention for little benefit. (Ultimately, it didn't really matter much: most of the focus was still on the accomplishment, but it's still a pointless own-goal.)
This is basically the same thing. Of course, it isn't illegal to use a term wrong, but it's going to inevitably detract from the things that matter. There's plenty of other words in the English language that can be used in place of the words "open source". Doesn't matter what you choose: source-available, fair source, etc. It's all fine. Just don't use "open source", that's confusing because it isn't consistent with how the term open source is used.
For better or worse, Open source is firmly-established industry jargon by this point. There's little point in arguing about it because right or wrong, we can go 100 comments deep and the status quo will be absolutely identical by the end. It's not worth it.
I’m worried about the psychological health of people that make stuff like this. Why? Nobody uses these frameworks unless paid, you need an actual team of people to maintain it.
I built Blazeio ([https://github.com/anonyxbiz/Blazeio]) because aiohttp let me down in production. I needed a framework I could trust to support high-concurrency web apps, and rather than just complain, I decided to build it myself. It’s not about coding pointlessly, it’s about solving real problems. I update it for me, but since others have faced similar challenges, they can benefit from it too. I designed to be efficient, scalable, and lightweight, capable of handling hundreds of thousands of requests on a single server with minimal resources. Sometimes, creating something is motivated by necessity, not just by a paycheck.
...sometimes people build things for fun, or as proofs of concept for iterative improvement on existing tools (which can then go on to inspire changes in existing and new mainline tools).
What does that have to do with (negative) mental health?
All the programming for the Apollo Program took less then a year and Microsoft Teams is decades in development obviously they are better than NASA programmers.
the programming for the NASA program is very simple; the logistics of the mission, which has nothing to do with programming, is what was complex
You're essentially saying "the programming to do basic arithmetic and physics took only a year" as if that's remotely impressive compared to the complexity of something like Microsoft Teams. Simultaneous editing of a document by itself is more complicated than anything an Apollo program had to do
I want to not like this comment, but I think you are right! There's a reason people like to say your watch has more compute power than the computers it took to put man on the moon.
