Venezuelan oil is very heavy, but the US oil industry is literally designed to process this type. The US exports their sweet crude elsewhere because they can't process it.
This is a false equivalence. We as a society generally accept that people can change their name, and as a matter of common decency take steps to use that name in the future.
This has nothing to do with how encyclopedias present fringe scientific ideas.
The policy the GP is talking about is not the policy of referring to people by their current name, but rather, then policy that former names should never be mentioned unless the person was notable under that name, which seems a bit excessive.
I have good news for you afpx! We don't have to pick either of those options in the real world. This is all the more telling for the folks who have chosen fascism despite not needing to.
This isn't weird, really. Rational people tend to not like being associated with fascists, and with Elon at the helm Tesla is strongly associated with American Fascism at the moment.
> Rational people tend to not like being associated with fascists
This is fair, but I don’t even think it’s that. They just don’t want everyone walking into their garage to immediately associate them with Musk. This is true for folks on the left, who call out his fascism. But it’s also true if someone with MAGA leanings walks in.
My personal favorite is the Tesla apology bumper sticker. I want to signal I care, but I only care about 20$. Love the virtue signaling while driving round a 50k$ donation to Elon.
I have people posting long apologies on LinkedIn about how they needed a new car but they disagree with (insert rant). It’s embarrassing they even post it. No one on LinkedIn even needs to or cares to know what car you drive, it’s just platitude virtue signaling
I'm extremely puzzled why you're bringing transgender people into this. You could've said "an opera in Columbia" and have had an equally valid argument about fiscal responsibilty and America's meddling in other countries. You, however, felt that it was morally necessary to mention that this was to benefit transgender people trying to live their lives as if that's a unique negative to be avoided.
I brought it up because if you took a poll of the Americans, the vast majority would be against spending money on it. And comparing it to just “an opera in Columbia”, I’d wager even less would support a transgender opera.
Are they, though? I'm not trying to be flippant. Rather, it's entirely unclear to me any positive outcome for these individuals or American citizen in general as a result of this effort. Can you provide vetted sources that accurately communciate actual benefits as a result of this effory for anyone other than Elon Musk and Donald Trump as individuals?
> Can you provide vetted sources that accurately communciate actual benefits as a result of this effory for anyone other than Elon Musk and Donald Trump as individuals?
Can you provide such sources that communicate the benefits of this effort for only Elon Musk and Donald Trump? I have seen a lot of speculation on the matter, with much of it plausible, but nothing concrete and nothing that really stands up to intense scrutiny.
At this point we're all working on a near-total information vacuum. To claim you know anything with certainty is presumptive, at best. To claim, with anything short of first-hand knowledge, that you both know exactly what is happening and exactly why it is happening is unbelievable.
Or at least it should be, but as discussion around this topic indicates, it's actually quite believable. Which is really a shame.
Alas, dbt Labs has developed a reputation for rug pulling functionality from dbt Core and gating most of their differentiating features behind dbt Cloud. I cannot see this type of consolidation being in the best interest of the dbt community.
dbt Labs is a Series D company with hundreds of millions in funding and a 4.2 billion USD valuation at their last round.
Their CEO and founder spoke of an IPO in 2022.
Let's not pretend they are still remotely close to their humble beginnings or were able to get this far without credibly demonstrating they have a plan for how to make enterprises bleed through their nose for their product.
That's the future.
On the flipside, building a dbt adjacent product enhancing or complementing capabilities is basically a sure way of how to get bought.
I've been on the lookout for a lighter, faster version of dbt and I was hoping sdf might be it.
For our (https://www.definite.app/) use case, I'd love to have something that compiles client-side, but in general dbt just feels like a lot of work to set up for what most of our customers actually need (simple transform to create tables and views).
Yeah my experience is much closer to that, I generally point my clients to core over cloud even if they're indifferent to the cost. (Sorry dbt guys, love your product, but somebody read the strategy memo backwards and you've got lock-out not lock-in. Replacing my IDE, ci/cd, or orchestration are "dealbreakers", not "features")
Could you point to some functionalities removed from dbt Core? I love dbt and use it where applicable but I have not yet encountered a loss of features upon upgrade yet - it would be useful to be aware what kind of features get removed
A brief list of features withheld or removed from Core:
- The dbt docs functionality is no longer maintained in favor of dbt Explorer in dbt cloud. A natural consequence is that larger dbt Core projects simply cannot leverage local docs due to performance defects.
- Multi-project support was widely discussed in the core repo w/ tooling contributions from the community, but that was locked behind enterprise-tier dbt cloud accounts
- Metricflow was a full OSS application that used to work in tandem with dbt Core. Post-acquisition, the original code was re-licensed and the functionality added to Cloud only (and you have to pay per semantic layer query now).
If anything, leaving this information out would flatten the complexities to an even greater degree. Understanding and sharing a well-rounded perspective of a person (e.g. that this person held objectively incorrect beliefs that were despised among his contemporaries) is quite literally why people study history.
Do you honestly not see the irony in declaring your own culture "objectively correct"? Do you eat meat? Burn carbon? These are things that conceivably may one day be considered even worse than we consider racism today. Don't be so quick to judge the past by today's values.
You're bringing up subjective beliefs as a straw man. The idea that it's morally wrong to eat meat or burn carbon are subjective. I specifically said objectively incorrect beliefs. The idea that there exist races of humans who are uniquely "superior" or "inferior" is an objectively incorrect belief. It is not true now, and it has never been true.
The idea that there exist species who are uniquely "superior" or "inferior" is an objectively incorrect belief. It is not true now, and it has never been true. Every species on Earth fulfills a purpose, and humans have no right to farm any of them. It is objectively better for humans to return to pre-agricultural levels of population and eat only what we catch with our bare hands.
Of course, I don't believe that statement. But it is as "objectively true" as yours. I just don't want to dispute yours, because I personally agree with it. But I can not call it an objectively better statement.
I am not being racist. I am demonstrating that our values are not "objectively correct".
Maybe someday a society that celebrates diversity in physical attributes will have preferred professions for those from races recognized to run faster, or jump higher, or father, or swim, even for individuals that do not particularly excel. And they might think us barbarians for ignoring all this beautiful diversity in human form and ability.
Except you once again substituted race, the topic of conversation, with something else. We're not discussing the differences between species. We're discussing racist beliefs which are testable, falsifiable, and have been proven incorrect. The mental gymnastics you're performing to claim a relativist position about RACISIM is very telling.
This lawsuit seems to be the prophesized exploding car covered in hammers [1]. The astounding part to me is that it's Matt's behavior itself that's making the car explode multiple times, sending hammers flying everywhere.
