> It's weird how it's not considered a basic human right to be able travel to where you want, and even live where you want as long as you can support yourself and comply with the local laws and customs
The "as long as you can" is exactly the reason. There is no way to ensure the travelers or migrants can (and want) to do that, if you don't have a border.
Really? If I go to another country and commit a crime they can't enforce their laws on me unless they stop me at the border? I don't see how stopping me at the border stops me from committing a crime when I get past it or stops the country from enforcing their laws when I am caught. What did the border magically do to change enforcement?
I have only seen such statements made in bad faith to mean "my subjective political opinions are objective reality". It's quackery. I see people on the conservative end say it too.
The meaning is that when things that should not be political questions because they have objectively correct answers do become political in recent years most of the time it is liberals whose positions match the objectively correct answer.
Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that liberals are more often correct than conservatives on how to deal with those things--that often is something that does not have an objectively correct answer and so is something that people can reasonably disagree over and so can reasonably become political.
For example consider climate change. How to address climate change is something that does not have an objectively correct answer and so you can't say that any given political group is right or wrong on that.
However, the question of whether or not the increases in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial time are most due to human activity is a question that does have an objectively correct answer. The C in CO2 comes in several different isotopes, and by looking at changes in the ratios between those isotopes in the C in atmospheric CO2 it is possible to determine that most of the increase has come from burning fossil fuels.
If a political group is taking the position that the rise in CO2 is not due to human activity they are objectively wrong, and the phrase that reality has a well known bias against that group is a way of highlighting that.
I am surprised by this example, for the same reason.
Generally, performance is a top cause of abstraction leaks and the emergence of less-than-beautiful code. On an infinitely powerful machine it would be easy and advisable to program using neat abstracrions, using purely "the language of" the business. Our machines are not infinitely powerful, and that is especially evident when larger data sets are involved. That's where, to achieve useful performance, you have to increasingly speak "the language of" the machine. This is inevitable, and the big part of the programmer's skill is to be able to speak both "languages", to know when to speak which one, and produce readable code regardless.
Database programming is a prime example. There's a reason, for example, why ORMs are very messy and constitute such excellent footguns: they try to gap this bridge, but inevitably fail in important ways. And having and ORM in the example would, most likely, violate the "functional core" principle from the article.
So it looks like the author accidentally presented a very good counterexample to their own idea. I like the idea though, and I would love to know how to resolve the issue.
Leaded gasoline was known to be problematic from day 1. The science was suppressed for years. Look up what happened immediately after that iconic tv stunt where the guy washed his hands in leaded gasoline (he had a psychotic break from lead exposure and was institutionalized)
Forever chemicals were known to be problematic and far more prevent than expected. 3M suppressed the science for literally decades. Senior leadership at 3M deliberately suppressed the data.
We should crush without mercy those who rob us of the right to protect ourselves when they suppress the science that is supposed to provide warning. Make penalties for suppressing science so severe that nobody attempts to do it. How specifically? If you hide information that your product kills, you get prosecuted for murder. If there are financial damages make them treble damages. Make it hurt so bad it’s not worth doing.
The answer is knowing. Individuals and institutions knowing the real dangers and acting appropriately. The place of governance is punishing those who knowingly hide the dangers and prevent us from taking appropriate proactive action.
But also education; one major shift is that measures that were taken in the past (e.g. vaccination campaigns) were so successful that a generation or three of people have grown up without any of the vaccinated diseases, so now they're like "...why do we even need these?". Add some scaremongering of chemicals and demonizing of autism aaand there's epidemics of measles again.
Dithering has similar importance in digital audio. Dithered 8-bit audio sounds way better than non-dithered (harsh artifacts are replaced with tolerable white noise, and quiet details are preserved). Higher end digital equipment even applies dithering to high-bit samples, as do plug-ins in digital audio workstations.
Audio dithering typically involves adding a small amount of noise before downconverting to lower resolution samples.
But there's another form of audio dithering that uses error diffusion (like TFA describes) rather than adding noise. If you use a single-bit ADC but sample much faster than Nyquist and keep track of your errors with error diffusion, you preserve all the audio information in the original with a similar number of bits as a (e.g.) 16-bit ADC sampled at Nyquist, but with the additional benefit that your sampling noised has moved above the audible range where it can be filtered out with an analog lowpass filter.
This is one-dimensional dithering but in the audio world it's called Sigma-Delta modulation or 1-bit ADC.
Critically, the benefits of audio dithering come with a single side-effect (i.e. audible artefact): an increase in the noise floor. In most cases, however, this elevated noise floor remains below the threshold of audibility, or more practically, quieter than the ambient noise of any reasonable listener’s playback environment.
What's important to appreciate is that dithering digital audio should only ever be performed when preparing a final export for distribution, and even then, only for bit-perfect copies. You shouldn't dither when the next step is a lossy codec. Encoders for AAC and Opus accept high bit depth originals, because their encoded files don't have a native "bit depth". They generate and quantise (compress) MDCT coefficients. When these encoded files are decoded to 16-bit PCM during playback, the codec injects "masking noise" which serves a similar function to dither.
> If they say NO, just agree and have the meeting with the rest of the team. Let them exclude themselves.
Sorry, let who exclude whom?
This is off topic, but I am not sure why you insist on saying "they" if even the OP says "he". I do not think you run the risk of offending anyone here.
But the "they"s are especially disorienting, as the context specifically requires distinguishing "them" (the team) and him (the competent jerk), so the pronoun replacement significantly reduces the clarity of your communication.
My personal traffic to Wikipedia fell after around 2019, when activist editors took over, and the site ceased to be trustworthy for a lot of important topics.
LLMs are great at asking questions if you ask them to ask questions. Try it: "before writing the code, ask me about anything that is nuclear or ambiguous about the task".
The "as long as you can" is exactly the reason. There is no way to ensure the travelers or migrants can (and want) to do that, if you don't have a border.