I thought Tail recursion just gets turned into an iterative loop by the compiler? Hence why you won’t get a stack overflow. And since in procedural languages you can just use a loop in place of a tail recursive function you would never run into this problem, right? At least this is how it was taught to me when I was learning about it in lisp.
sacredfire
I heard this somewhere: “You’re in an IVF clinic. It’s on fire and you enter a burning room. On a table is a large cooler with 5 thousand fertilized eggs, and there’s also a crying, injured five-year-old girl in the room. Which one do you save? You can only save one.” The answer for most people is obviously the 5 year old and it’s not a hard choice.
You would be able to tell by monitoring the network tab of the browser developer tools. If post requests are being made (which they probably are, though I’m too lazy to go check) while you are typing a comment, they are most likely saving work in progress records for comments.
I don’t know, when we start talking about power users my mind goes to developers and most seem to not like windows. At least that has been my experience. Most of us prefer unix based systems, primarily because we have to use it to interact with like almost every server anyway. And of course I’m not just talking about different Linux distos, Mac is essentially Unix based and is in heavy use in a lot of shops.
Ooof my guy, the comment you originally replied to - to brag about how easy sql is - literally said he had an IT director 20 years ago trying to get everyone in the department to write SQL queries, where did he mention frontend dash boards? How can an IT director be that stupid... what is this thread about and why do you think he shared that anecdote? A thread about idiots asking for stupid shit... I wonder what could possibly be reason, we may never know but I'm sure you'll explain it to us.
What could possibly go wrong letting non-programmers write raw sql directly to the production db, it's pretty easy right.
But by this same logic anything can be "proven". If I see evidence of an abrhamic god, then I can prove its existence. This is not a novel or sufficient observation to meet the criteria that imperical based science is held to. The claim must also be falsifiable, just how a metaphysical God can always escape attempts to disprove it by relying on the imperical nature of science i.e. we can't really prove or disprove anything objectively, the counter effect is that it can't be proven under the scientific imperical framework either. I will admit I'm not well versed in the evidence for ST which you have referenced, but how would it be falsifiable? It seems any attempt can always be handwaved away as it's simply too complex a simulation... God works in mysterious ways right. To me this puts it squarely in the metaphysical realm, which isn't a bad thing per say, but again speaks to the intent of the meme.
By this same logic we can exclude the possibility of simulation theory, no? By your own logic it's not a stretch to "exclude the possibility" of something "because it’s a possibility that we can’t observe by any means". I believe goes back to the point of the meme: self proclaimed logical actors believing in something unprovable and thus proving themselves to be hypocrites...
But at that point, isn't that no different than just saying the universe isn't a simulation? If there is a base universe than that is the "actual" universe, and who cares about all the simulations beyond what we would care about a simulation we created? For this to be the case, I feel like there would need to be some additional features or complexities about this base universe that can't be simulated and thus that allows those in it to prove that they are not a simulation. The issue the simulation universes have is that if they could create a simulation of their own universe they are immediately confronted with the conundrum that they themselves are probably not the first one to do this. But this theoretical base universe would have some characteristic about it that precluded them from this issue. Or maybe they don't, maybe they think they're simulation too but they're not and have no way to prove otherwise, they just happen to be the base. However, if that is the case, then you can make that same argument for this universe can't you?
While yes, they were discriminated against in the region, I would argue that was the case for any non-Muslim, and not targeted at Jews specifically. Compared to what they put up with in Europe at the hands of the Christians, like the inquisition and pogroms, having to deal with paying the jizyah tax and being treated as not full citizens seemed like a better outcome.
The Ottomans were no saints, but Ottoman landlords were more than happy to rent and sell land to Zionist settlers in Palestine during the late 19th and early 20th century. These settlers were at first met with indifference, which only later turned to conflict as more and more of them poored in and the goals of the Zionist movement to establish their own state became apparent.
This is not to say that the Jews did not face injustice and unfair treatment in the Middle East in the centuries leading up to the modern era, however, there is often an argument being made that the Jews have suffered persecution at the hands of non Jewish Middle Eastern people for a thousand years and the insinuation is that this somehow justifies the behavior of the state of Israel. This is a much more modern conflict, with a long list of blame and atrocities to go around on both sides. However, some atrocities from the very earlist Jewish settlers and later state are pretty shocking and not well documented in the west.
Unless you are going back to the war with the Romans, the Jews were not a persecuted minority in that region any more than any other minority, which would include the Arabs themselves seeing as they were controlled by the Ottomans for hundreds of years previous. The Jews were tolerated, and there was a very small religious community living in Jerusalem during the hundreds of years of Ottoman control that got along perfectly fine. The greater diaspora, especially in Eastern Europe through the 18th and 19th centuries was, however, constantly persecuted and were victims of numerous pogroms.
The Zionist movement was a reaction to the fact that European countries could not be trusted. It was a common cycle that the Jews would make a living for themselves, beginning to think that they could finally establish a home but then get attacked, scapegoated, and forced to flee. It was the Eastern European Jews fleeing such pogroms who would make up the majority of the first settlers of the Zionist mission in Palestine.
All this is simply to say that when people claim "oh they've been fighting there for thousands of years" and "the Jews were being persecuted there for so long" is not accurate. There really has not been a Jewish presence in the region since the Jewish revolt was put down by the Romans 2,000 years ago. While the current conflict is decades old, it is entirely related to the circumstances around the founding of Israel.
While I don’t totally disagree with you, nor advocate the position you are arguing against… I wonder what is the scientific definition of sanity? Is there a consensus on it? If it is a concept that exists outside the context of our society as you claim, then is it something objectively inherent in all humans regardless of their culture or circumstances? Or can its meaning change over time; can the standard of entrance be lowered or raised depending on current trends or the whim of the majority?