What happened at the Capitol was way past the point of simple protesting. It's unfortunately people who have been sucked into a cult. They reject reality and got violent because of it.

"You know this is already being politicized"

"I also have a problem waiting months for a slow inefficient government agency to figure out how to cover their collective asses"

Guilty.

I don't understand why so many devs seem to want to use Functional programming.

It's the exact same thing to me as what this article is complaining about. Everyone jumping on the latest and greatest bandwagon.

Angular is easy, and OOP is very easy to work with for business needs.

OOP is very easy to misuse where it hurts the most - on architectural level. It's very possible to write bad, unreadable FP code, but worst case isn't as bad or far reaching as with OOP.

I suppose so, I've seen that myself. I always take the time to design anything I do thoroughly though so it's all clear and concise.

Also the only time I used FP it was a seemingly awful implementation.

Perhaps I'll mess around with F# or something some time to see how I feel about it more.

In the case of React, I find functional programming excellent when it comes to mapping views from state. For state management, functional programming just seems like a massive time sink and a convoluted way of achieving the same things that OOP just gives you.

> For state management, functional programming just seems like a massive time sink and a convoluted way of achieving the same things that OOP just gives you.

Huh? function(state(A)) = state(B), always.

Right, I don't know much about React myself, but that must be why Redux was created right?

"Optical networks like you listed are pretty dumb so aren't nearly as much of a threat"

They can be tapped into still, of course. Doesn't GCHQ copy all the data coming through their fibre lines and run it through computers for analysis?

> They can be tapped into still, of course

Slightly different threat model.

"I don't want to compile languages that don't need compilation"

Well it's a transpilation, not a compilation, and you are able to run .ts files in dev mode without transpilation.

"fact that I need to create all of these fake feeling types"

I feel the contrary to you. I want everything to be well defined in my application, especially if it's a server :)

I disagree. I really don't find Typescript hard to use at all, and I've preferred the security and well defined variables and functions that Typescript provides. I would use TS over JS any day.

QAnon is a fascist movement and has spread like wildfire through websites like Facebook. I know people in other countries who believe it.

> I wish more would recognize the convenience of Amazon for the dystopia that it truly is and then act with their wallets

The show The Patriot Act covered this exact sentiment in a good segment on Amazon.

People fail to notice that many who are killed are innocent, and this actually creates more people willing to fight back.

It's a vicious cycle, and the murdering of innocent people only makes it worse.

It’s not clear to me whether that’s true on a larger scale. Obviously, innocent people die in war and that’s regrettable and to be minimized. But innocent people also suffer from the instability and insecurity caused by terrorism. Note that while most countries opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan, opinion polling in India—which shares a border with that country—showed a majority of people there supported military action against the Taliban.

Note that leaving terrorism unchecked also has a cost. I agree folks tend to have a perception of terrorism risks that outweighs the actual cost in lives. But while the psychology is in peoples’ heads, the dollar impact is real. People don’t want to invest in an area where terrorism isn’t a risk. People with means and opportunities leave such areas, creating brain drain. The existence of these unstable places like Afghanistan imposes a real cost on the people in surrounding countries.

Innocent people will die in any significant military action. And if avoiding those casualties is the overriding concern, then you should never engage in non-defensive military action. And that’s certainly a very defensible position, but I’m not sure it’s always the correct one.

> while most countries opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan, opinion polling in India—which shares a border with that country

India does not de facto share a border with Afghanistan (Its claimed extent of Kashmir does have a small border, but in practice that's irrelevant)

"Note that leaving terrorism unchecked also has a cost."

True, but I believe there were a LOT less terrorists on this earth, before the US started its War On Terror.

So fighting terror, yes, but maybe not by blowing up whole weddings, because one guest has a cell phone that was linked to a bad guy?

(sadly not really exaggerating)

I don't think people are failing to notice. That's one of the most common complaints.

"I'll tell you what war is about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting."

-Curis LeMay

"Free speech is not free of consequences"

This is absolutely true though? I fail to see your point.

You are free to say what you want, and other people are free to criticize you for it. If you don't support the right to criticize, you don't support free speech.

Depends on the consequences. Usually this is invoked to mean "it's fine for me burn down your business or destroy your life because I don't like you because consequences <grin>"

In general, the statement CANNOT be true, because the chilling effect explicitly suppresses free speech -- being a result of consequences. Ergo, consequence (of a particular type) is in fact suppression of free speech.

> Usually this is invoked to mean "it's fine for me burn down your business or destroy your life because I don't like you because consequences <grin>"

What a ridiculous hyperbole of what it "usually" means.

Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching).

> Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching).

No, the 1st Amendment is the right to not be arrested for speaking (in the United States). Free Speech is a philosophy that would absolutely cover not committing physical violence against someone for what they say. Violence in response to speech is probably a good starting point for the definition of unfree speech.

This is spot on. In addition the first amendment is theoretically protection against punching you in the face not being prohibited because of something you said. The government could make face punching legal in general, but not legal only if the victim first makes an idiot out of themselves.

Yes, the reason we have laws against face punching people who say dumb things is partly to protect free speech in the philosophical sense (there are obviously other reasons too, such as that it hurts).

This still doesn’t mean that speech without consequences is possible. The grandparent comment mentioned the loss of a livelihood as an example (unsure exactly what it refers to but could be e.g boycotts).