If those were the only benefits nobody would think it was remotely sane. The extra work supporting `main` and dealing with the confusion far outweighs that.
It would be like renaming `creat` to `create`. Yeah it should have been `create` in the first place but it would be completely insane to change it now.
I agree that it was vastly overblown in importance and was mostly the usual token "somebody must do something" thing with no practical meaning.
But I also think that repeatedly ranting about it now, when the transition has largely already happened, is equally a waste of time. Me, I just use "main" going forward for the reasons I listed above.
Right, fewer letters equal better! Very professional.
Honestly though, it doesn't matter to me what you or I name branches or what test images we use. I'm going to objectify women and own slaves in any case.
What makes that even more ironic are the number of people involved in that spat that were probably happily wearing cheap cotton products of dubious origin at the time.
Actual modern slavery still exists and is sadly wide spread.
There have been issues with git's master->main transition as well, once automated systems came into play that expected to find a master branch. This is also my main complaint about that particular episode: Too much "somebody needs to do something" mandates, and too little "how to do it properly" (which would provide benefits for other situations as well.) When the two parts of the activity are split between two different groups, there's no incentive, either: The mandate group checks a box and walks away happily, having reached their OKR. The implementation group doesn't get the devops time to implement proper aliasing and what-have-you, so they just wing it until everything works again.
That said, it's mostly water under the bridge right now, and it isn't applicable at all for the "reference image for computer graphics papers" situation unless somebody starts rewriting all the old papers to reference a different image:
A "somebody needs to do something" mandate would likely lead to new versions of the old papers in which the image is removed without replacement. The "do it right" solution would lead to people replicating the research with different material, which might not even be for the worst - but I see no chance that will happen at scale.
No, you are confusing things together, because you believe in Whig Historiography.
In reality, most of the west is declining due to bad ideas and the rejection of good ideas that our people once held.
To return to ideas and traditions would not be to go back in time - noone can do that, rather to reinvent, to rejuvenate, and revive the good ideas of the past in the context of the present.
No, what you just said is confusing. You can’t take good ideas from the past and apply them to the present. Times have changed. The situation is different now. We need new ideas, new philosophies, new approaches, to the new problems we face today. To return to whatever golden years you are referring to is a return to the dark ages, no matter how noble your intent. What we need is for people to stop wishing for golden years and make these years golden. You aren’t going to do that with 1950s thinking. We need 2050 thinking.
Well a positive vision for the future would be some new ideological synthesis for Britain. It would involve remixing the good parts of 1950s thinking and learning the lessons from the things that have gone wrong in more recent decades.
For example, in the 1950s people would have been appalled by the idea of mass immigration. In 2023, it is at the root of many of the UK's most significant problems: the housing crisis, the collapsing NHS, the destruction of the high trust society, the shattering of British identity into dozens of cultural enclaves.
There is no honourable way to undo the mass immigration that has already happened. However, we can radically reduce it.
At the current immigration rate, it is simply impossible for the rate of cultural integration to keep pace with the the rate of influx. At vastly reduced rates of immigration, our society would have space amd time to forge a new British identity.
We have made choices that have proven themselves destructive, but it's not too late to revisit those mistakes, and then build anew from the ashes of the current decade.
It’s not just a British problem. Climate change, war, population growth, all play a factor. America and “The Wall”. Britain and the “mass refugee immigration”. Italy and theirs, Greece, the list goes on. People want to live, in security, and prosperity for their children and in some places of the world that’s not possible. So they migrate, immigrate, or become refugees of a war that only makes sense in the nonsensical. I’m not saying there aren’t problems, there are, but to put up walls and restrict humans and deny empathy is not the answer.
This is an article of faith on your part. None of the immigrants are relocating directly because of climate changes, and a minority are moving because they are refugees from an active war zone. Many are fighting age men, adventurers and opportunists.
Refugee laws were written a hundred years ago when there were frequent wars in Europe that would displace non-combattent women and children. They didn't have much option to go far beyond a neighbouring country and would likely go back home after the war was over.
Our current system of laws requires us to host any refugee or immigrant from anywhere in the world on a permanent basis.
There is no way this is sustainable economically, and much less so culturally.
The government could fix this instantly, but they choose not to.
Refugee laws were written in 1951 after people felt total shame at having kept out so many victims of the Nazis during World War 2. And the immigrants are not causing the burden on the NHS but the staffing of the NHS. Just check how many of the nurses in any London hospital are Filipino. Finally, house prices are not high because of immigrants but because governments keeps inflating the house price bubble. Any politician who tried a policy of "let's radically drop house prices" would find his career tanked by Boomer voters. Any other non-truths you want to drop to blame us immigrants for everything?
So the supply and demand economy of the housing market, how would the government reduce prices? Remember the indigenous population has sub-replacement level birthrates. Homes should be becoming more available not less- and they would be if the nations children were not being disinherited by the boomers
How would the government reduce house prices? Easy:
1) Massively build out social housing
2) Stop tax incentives, part ownership and other house buying incentives
3) Tax empty houses like in Switzerland, Germany etc etc
4) Crackdown on use of house purchases for money laundering by Saudi princes,
Russian oligarchs, corrupt Chinese Communist Party officials,
South American drug cartel bosses etc etc
The sub-replacement birthrate is a reason Britain sucks in immigrants like a vacuum cleaner. The English don't make babies, and when they do, they murder them in the womb. The immigration is the only thing stopping Britain turning into one big ghost town.
However all those migrants were basically a free source of human skill - i.e. another country poured their resources into nurturing and educating them, now the country they immigrate to gets to reap all the rewards. So it's hard to see how you couldn't pay an economic price for keeping out migrants.
I also wonder how you'd feel if the economic/political situation in your own country deteriorated so much that you felt you had no choice but to migrate elsewhere - but were no longer able to because anti-migration policies had become the norm everywhere.
> However all those migrants were basically a free source of human skill - i.e. another country poured their resources into nurturing and educating them, now the country they immigrate to gets to reap all the rewards.
A huge segment of the migrant flow comes with basically no skills, and is immediately dependant of the welfare system. The migration we are currently experiencing is a net negative for the UK
From what I've read, in most countries with strong levels of migration, the level of underemployment is almost always lower among migrants than the native born. I'd be pretty astounded if the UK was an exception.
Even just having reached adulthood and attained secondary-school level education makes you a capable worker that the country they migrate to has had to do nothing to support until that point. Any small amount of extra investment to ensure they learn the language and obtain employable-skills on top of that is virtually always going to pay off.
I'm not advocating anything - as it happens I do think it's unfair for some countries to cream off the best talent developed in other countries. But if those countries have failed to provide an environment their citizens can thrive in, they have every right to look elsewhere. And as a citizen of a country of migrants (*) I'm more than happy to have them come here. I recognise the UK doesn't really qualify the way Australia does but none of the concerns you've expressed make sense to me as a reason your nation's economy might be suffering.
(*) including my Dad, who came here as a 10 pound pom!
Their ideas are perfectly coherent and consistent within their own framing. Just because you look at the world through a different frame, doesn't mean that these people are saying things that are unreasonable
If my kids wanted to join the military, I would support them. Especially the Navy; while one can (and does) say that the American military is the strongest military of all times, in terms of greatness in battle, the Army does not have a lot to show (no American general cracks the top 10). The Navy can boast Midway. And can be proud with Nimitz, probably the greatest admiral ever, Nelson included.
So, why would I discourage my kids from joining a great organization? How many people in the Navy have died in combat after WW2?
The thing is, if you don't want to risk your life, but you still want to join the US military, there are plenty of positions in the military where you don't risk your life.
> regime that hates them and everything they stand for?
Well, that's you opinion. You are entitled for it. "Entitled" meaning here, there is a certain piece of paper that guarantees your right to have and express your opinion. Piece of paper that would be worth less than a piece of toilet paper, if not for the US military.
> Piece of paper that would be worth less than a piece of toilet paper, if not for the US military.
After WWII, only a tiny minority of wars fought by the US were in self-defense. Most of the time the military was on foreign soil of countries that never attacked the US. The most their justifications amounted to were terrorist attacks, to which it responded with full invasions that left millions dead.
It took half a century, but people are just not buying "we have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" anymore.
If you used the same threshold for what justifies an invasion against the US, as the US does to other countries.. well, you wouldn't mind Chinese drones and bombers flying overhead, liberating you, would you? It's either that, or their constitution becomes worthless.
The ones who used to be willing to lay down their lives for honour and the love of their people and homeland, and who now see military service to the regime as futile and even self-defeating.
Yes. The US military used to have a defensive function toward western people, culture, morals and values.
Not any longer, which is one of the reasons why today there are many things which I am not free to criticise or satirise, and have to use anonymous public forums.
What are you talking about? Is this some sort of metaphor? Will anyone arrest you if you criticize of satirize? Where's that? In the western world?
I'm aware that in Germany you can get in prison if you are a Holocaust denier. In a few other countries too. The US does not have a lot of patience with Holocaust deniers. You will not get in legal trouble in the US, because of the freedom of speech. But the US will not move a finger if a country in its sphere of influence passes a law making Holocaust denying a crime.
But other than that, what type of criticism or satire can get you arrested?
Maybe your fear is of being "cancelled". But this is a cultural thing, not a legal thing. What exactly would you like the US to do?
