I find it strange that when people defend so called “race science” today a common argument seems to be along the lines of “this is correct because some people have negative emotional response to something”. While having a negative emotional response to something certainly isn't an counter argument in itself and isn't a pro argument either! A viewpoint isn't correct merely because it pisses some people off.
Either way, as far as I know, biologist haven't really considered human races to be biologically meaningful category for quite some time now opting clines[1] which are not discrete, but gradual genetic variations over geographic areas, nor does it follow the traditionally defined racial lines. This is why I'm quite suspicious of people pushing so called “race science” as AFAIK it simply doesn't seem to have evidence behind it, rather, it seems to have specific political viewpoints behind it generally.
Races may not be a biologically valid category but ancestry is, and the fact that some populations are intermediate on a cline doesn’t mean most people can’t be relatively cleanly assigned to a population level continental ancestry group[1]. Ancestry groups may not be valid if you’re a biologist but they’re certainly relevant for those dealing with within species variation[2]. This is not to say that ‘race’ is the be all and end all of ancestry informed medicine but they’re better than nothing. More information is better but acting like crude ancestry measures tells you nothing is pure ignorance.
Implications of biogeography of human populations for ‘race’ and medicine
In this review, we focus on the biogeographical distribution of genetic variation and address whether or not populations cluster according to the popular concept of ‘race’. We show that racial classifications are inadequate descriptors of the distribution of genetic variation in our species. Although populations do cluster by broad geographic regions, which generally correspond to socially recognized races, the distribution of genetic variation is quasicontinuous in clinal patterns related to geography. The broad global pattern reflects the accumulation of genetic drift associated with a recent African origin of modern humans, followed by expansion out of Africa and across the rest of the globe. Because disease genes may be geographically restricted due to mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection, knowledge of individual ancestry will be important for biomedical studies. Identifiers based on race will often be insufficient.
> This is not to say that ‘race’ is the be all and end all of ancestry informed medicine but they’re better than nothing.
Actually, it's often worse than nothing. Even assuming that "race" is entirely genetic and not a social construct, fitness in society changes so rapidly, that no genetics can properly account for it.
A day laborer born in the 1950s U.S. a genetically perfect fit for mining coal, might have had a great deal of success for the first 20 years of their career, and then a poor outcome for the last 10 years. Nothing changed with their genetics, they just became less desirable within society based on social trends.
Genetic changes take generations, often dozens of generations, to realize any noticeable difference. Social changes often occur in years and sometimes months, far faster.
Therefore, any conclusions based on genetics that fail to consider how the genetics fall within society are missing most of the point.
Different moral considerations sometimes come in conflict forcing you to choose between different compromises.
Avoiding harm is a moral principle I'm sure many share and there are cases where this conflicts with being honest. If you go down this “you should never lie” you are effectively choosing to do the harm because you prioritise honesty. Maybe that's right in that situation, but you are doing a compromise between ethical principles in either case.
Personally I used to be never-ever-lie dogmatic, but as I've lived my thinking as evolved and I definitely think there exists cases where lying is the more ethical option. However, it's important to me that it's strongly ethically justified and not just something you do because it's the most easy or whatever.
>If you go down this “you should never lie” you are effectively choosing to do the harm because you prioritise honesty.
The framing of morality as between prioritizing certain morals over others is only a particular way of viewing it - the consequentialist way. For deontological metaethics, you have something like a categorical imperative.
My bet is the licensing stuff which can make it difficult/expensive to make proprietary apps with it. (In practice, I know the picture is a bit complicated.)
Also, personally, while QML probably is the nicest OOP/bindings style UI framework I've seen, it's still not as nice as any of the reactive ones (i.e. React, Vue, Angular2, Flutter, etc…).
Yeah, in my OP I was meaning the WWW specifically, so the things developed for use with the WWW (HTML, CSS, HTTP, etc.) Networking (TCP/IP, UDP, etc.) are not WWW specific.
Now having said that, sure I've seen some defence projects that make use of HTTP or have internal "web"sites for managing interfaces. It's even a trend for embedded hardware to have web management interfaces (your internet router/modem is a great example).
But when I say "web", of course I was really meaning user-facing/world facing websites. That seems to be the implication behind "front end developer". Not "I make front ends for building automation systems" but "I make front ends for websites hosted on the WWW". Requires a slightly different set of knowledge imo. One is tailored for looks and UX, the other is a trade-off between minimalism, efficiency, and usability (if only this was applied more to the major sites you see on the WWW now!).
Semantics, but JavaScript itself is not a "web technology" - despite being conceived for the purpose of web scripting the original publication for version 1 even calls out that the language can be used on a variety of host environments (not limited to browsers). This can largely be seen in host environments like Node.js where it acts like any other similar language.
By that logic, CSS is not a web technology because it can also be used in GUI toolkits like GTK[1]. HTML is used in ePUB files[2], so I guess it's not a web technology either...
Would protocols that use HTTP for transport like gRPC[3] mean that HTTP is not a web technology either? I don't know what is a web technology anymore...
TypeScript's complexity comes from trying to model typical JavaScript patterns using a compile-time type system.
It turns out trying to model a dynamic language's typical usage at compile-time is lead to some complicated stuff.
Personally I think it's mostly worth it since most of that is hidden behind API-boundries or (more commonly) in type-definition files and your own code typically either has really simple type annotations or is inferred (i.e. not explicitly type annotated).
But I see your point and it does sorta feel a bit C++-like in this respect sometimes.
One problem with banning plastic straws as well is that many disabled people are dependent on them to be able to drink. AFAIK the alternatives (other kinds of straws) don't work well.
Communism can be slightly confusing to talk about as it describes both a specific kind of society, ideology/ideologies and a kind of state. It's certainly one kind of socialism.
Communism as society (sometimes called ”full communism”: A) Is class-less This means that there are no groups of people who hold own/power of ”means of production” (workplaces) at the expenses of those who don't.
B) State-less: a society that is not organised through a state at all. (This is why the term ”communist state” is funny.)
C) Resource philosophy organised along: contribute based on ability, get based on need.
D) It doesn't really claim to solve any other problems. This would not be a perfect society, only one without class conflict and state violence.
Communist ideologies are ideologies whose goal it is to attain communism as society. Examples of this are Leninism (what is often meant by ”communism” in the west), various forms of Marxism, Anarchocommunism/Libertarian Communism.
Leninist and other Marxists want to attain communism through a specific kind of state, but this state is a means to an end and the state itself is meant to vanish in the transition to ”full communism”.
Libcom/Ancoms argue that you should just skip the whole state part (and that it would ruin it anyway) and just try to build a communist society (stateless, remember) directly.
(Some philosophies fall between these philosophies.)
Of course, nobody has managed to achieve a communist society (and AFAIK few if any have claimed to do so). If this is possible or not I leave to you consider.
> and that socialism roughly means the workplace is owned by the government.
State socialists (i.e. Leninists, many Marxists, many radical democratic socialists) argue that workers can own their workplaces through a state in which they hold power.
Non-state socialists (i.e. anarchists, libertarian socialists, etc, ) argue that the worker control and ownership much be more direct and that society should be organised in a decentralised fashion.
There are some that fall between these dichotomies.
-----
I'm not a political science academic by any stretch, so sorry if I got some details wrong here.
---
EDIT: One difference between communism and other forms of socialism is that the communists generally more negative to markets than others. This is most clear in anarchist circles where you'll find libertarian communists argue with left-wing market socialists and such.
According to John Sculley’s in the book Points of View a tribute to Alan Kay, Apple invested in Cray hardware in order to simulate what the computing power of a desktop 10 years ahead would be and what kind of possibilities it would offer.
In 1987, Apple also invested in a Cray XMP 48 super computer which enabled our engineers to experiment with what real time manipulation of multidimensional objects on a screen would look and feel like many years before such computational power would be available on general purpose personal computers.
You can buy the book or download a PDF of it for free here: http://vpri.org/pov/
Either way, as far as I know, biologist haven't really considered human races to be biologically meaningful category for quite some time now opting clines[1] which are not discrete, but gradual genetic variations over geographic areas, nor does it follow the traditionally defined racial lines. This is why I'm quite suspicious of people pushing so called “race science” as AFAIK it simply doesn't seem to have evidence behind it, rather, it seems to have specific political viewpoints behind it generally.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)