Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I arrived in China 2001.

I experienced the harshest and largest lockdown in all of history: Wuhan, January 23rd, 2020. A real lockdown, not the cosplay bullshit you experienced outside of China. (Yes, this is me saying you’ve never fucking set foot in the country.)

The rest you’re just flat-out lying about. Sorry, Sparky. Did pet killings happen? Yes. They were not the mass shit that the press you’re so obviously reciting acts like they were. Did some doors get welded? Yes. But nowhere near you and, again, nowhere near in the masses the press you’re basing your lies on made it seem like. The local salaries are garbage iff you’re a fuckwit sitting in the west applying western prices to Chinese salaries. (Which, naturally, you are, good little fuckwit liar that you are.) And you’ve changed your tune from 14 hours to 12 hours really fucking quickly there, Sparky, not to mention using the proper slang only after I gave it to you.

So yeah, you’re just a west-dwelling fuckwit lying about being here. Go toddle off in your China Watcher corners and play with the rest of the intellectual children you belong with. There’s a good boy.

Removed by mod

Yes. Some people are beyond hope. Therefore we shouldn’t bother with empathy with all people. This is exactly how logic works. Yes.

But yes, indeed, some people are beyond hope. It’s why I won’t bother engaging with you further. (Guess where you just got categorized…)

You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.

Indeed. This is because he lacks actual empathy so doesn’t actually comprehend the very concept.

Yes. That’s exactly what everybody here is saying.

I resubmit: you lack all capacity to comprehend any viewpoint other than yours and will only damage anything you believe in as a result.

That “slippery slope” is absolutely vital to slither down if you want to formulate public policy.

If you don’t understand why people mistrust “big pharma” or “big government” or “big [sobriquet]” and reflexively dismiss anything that involves them, you cannot formulate public policy that will be effective.

Very rarely do people say “I’m going to dismiss centuries of scientific progress for this quack cure” without a reason. It’s maybe not a reason you agree with. It’s maybe not a reason reality agrees with. But you know what it might be? It might be a reason that traces back to how “big [sobriquet]” has acted toward such people in the past, often persistently over a long period of time, that has led to that breakdown in trust. In short: you (as in the beneficiaries of the status quo and “big [sobriquet]”, directly or indirectly) may be at least partially historically culpable in the opposition you now face.

Now I get it: accepting that you yourself are partially culpable for “irrational” opposition is a bitter elixir to swallow, but if you don’t take that first step toward understanding, you can’t take the second step to correcting the problem. And the problem will continue to fester and take root until, oh, I don’t know, something utterly fucking insane happens and a million of your fellow citizens die in a public health disaster because half your population doesn’t trust the very institutions that were needed to prevent said disaster.

So maybe you should learn to enjoy sliding down slippery slopes. Or, you know, die in the next easily-preventable pandemic. Like a million of your fellow citizens (assuming you’re American: insert your own numbers for your own country if not) did in the current one.

Not all people can be persuaded by “connected knowing” (not a big fan of this terminology), but many can be (over time).

NOBODY, however, who can’t be persuaded by “connected knowing” will be persuaded by “separate learning”, so I’m not sure what your point here is.

In human language: You are completely and absolutely devoid of any degree of empathy or compassion and thus your own worst enemy when it comes to persuading others. You are far more likely to damage any cause you espouse than to promulgate it.

Human enough for you? If you’d rather have it in binary bits, let me know which ISA you are programmed in and I’ll write the program that explains it to you.

Apparently you care enough to comment.

I have always understood that C generally compiles almost directly to assembly with little to no abstraction overhead, and it would not require platform-specific ASM code.

You have always understood incorrectly then. I’d recommend a trip over to Godbolt and take a look at the assembler output from C code. Play around with compiler options and see the (often MASSIVE!) changes. That alone should tell you that it doesn’t compile “almost directly to assembly”.

But then note something different. Count the different instructions used by the C compiler. Then look at the number of instructions available in an average CISC processor. Huge swaths of the instruction set, especially the more esoteric, but performance-oriented instructions for very specific use cases, are typically not touched by the compiler.

In the very, very, very ancient days of C the C compiler compiled almost directly to assembly. Specifically PDP-11 assembly. And any processor that was similar to the PDP-11 had similar mappings available. This hasn’t been the case, however, likely longer than you’ve been alive.

Oh, sorry, did any of your pearls fall? Thanks for your precious “engagement”.

I guess it’s scary for some people to participate in even a conversation about something new with an open mind without being condescending.

Irony, thy name is … well, just check the user name. It’s all you need.

For months at one place I worked senior developers and even junior managers had been haranguing the higher-ups with an alarm bell on how important the Internet was going to be and how we needed to start pivoting toward outfitting our product with the ability to interact properly on the Internet. We were steadfastly ignored and our concerns were quietly scoffed at because our product was a “best of breed” product in our space.

Then we got hit by a huge wave of lost sales because we had no viable scheme in place to proper interact with Internet-based applications.

The then-CEO called a “developers all-hands” meeting in which he pranced around on the stage at the front of the auditorium to complain to us that nobody had been telling him how important this Internet thing was going to be and that we were supposed to be keeping an eye on the leading edge of technology so he can make plans for these things.

This sparked a VERY LOUD outcry as about 150 software developers who’d been ignored and scoffed at for months just flipped a switch into revolution mode. Lots of people started talking loudly (then shouting). One guy with a laptop connected it to the big projector display and started scrolling through an email folder where he’d collected the notices warning about the importance of the Internet and management’s (including the CEO’s) condescending replies. By the end of that little skirmish the CEO was making a lame excuse that he was “joking” and was “taking our feedback very seriously” after 20 people (half of them very senior) just flatly quit in front of him and walked out of the auditorium.

That’s probably the worst “read the fucking room, dude!” moment I ever saw.

I think you should probably instead know that it’s better to just donate directly to the aid agencies actually supplying the aid instead of letting a non-aid entity charity-wash themselves to get more money later.

What. Fucking. Analogy?

I’m sorry that the Chinese classify things differently from you. I’ll get right on asking them to change it to suit your thoughts. (As it so happens, the classifier 张 is, in fact, “flat objects”. Fancy that! Perhaps reading what I actually wrote instead of what you wanted me to write so you could “well akshually” me might be an advantage.)

I’m reporting what is, not recommending.

The original form is the current “he”, so returning to that would be problematical.

I love German’s case structure! Except that the gender system slices through what could be an elegant way of piecing sentences together in any order without ambiguity and turns it into a muddled mess that requires you to memorize the silly gender of every damned noun in the language. ☹

English has gendered pronouns, for example. There’s also some gender divides in nouns: actor/actress, for example. (These are slowly being replaced, however.)

Languages like Farsi and Mandarin and such don’t. The only difference in pronouns, in fact, with Farsi is “courteous” vs. “common”. And even that isn’t happening as much as it used to. And the only time nouns are gendered is if the item they’re talking about has an actual physical gender. Like “man” or “woman”. There are no gendered declensions of any kind, in fact.

It’s more complicated in Chinese. In oral Chinese there’s no gendered pronouns. It’s pronounced [tā] whether you mean man, woman, or other.¹ As with Farsi, however, there are no gendered nouns outside of those describing literal physically-gendered things. And unlike Farsi, not only are there no gendered declensions of any kind, there are hardly any declensions of any kind².

¹ In written Chinese, for complicated reasons, there are three different pronouns in common usage: 他 for masculine (he), 她 for feminine (she), and 它 for everything else (it). This “modernization” was first proposed in the very late 19th century and came into its final form sometime in the 1920s. It was a deliberate attempt to make Chinese easier to translate into western languages (and since at the time the Chinese had somewhat of an inferiority complex it was also couched as making Chinese a “modern” language). (There were a couple of others added, including one for deities and one for animals, but those never caught on and are hardly ever seen in modern Chinese.)

But they’re all pronounced the same: [tā].

And now, full circle, Chinese is “modernizing” again. While official laws, forms, scholarly papers, regulations, etc. use that three-way split in pronouns, increasingly in commercial settings (like the world’s largest digital souq: Taobao) all pronouns are being replaced with “TA”. Yes. Latin letters. Uppercased.

This I find completely hilarious: Chinese developed gendered pronouns (in writing only!) to soothe western tastes … only to pick up an ungendered pronoun again … to match western tastes. And before westerners have solved the problem themselves in their own languages!

² Chinese does not decline for number except for a tiny handful of cases you can learn completely in 30 minutes. (And even here it’s not quite ‘declension’ like that word applies in the Indo-European family of languages.) There’s no “car” vs. “cars”. They’re both 汽车. If you want to specify that you mean more than one car, you would modify it by saying “some” or “three” or whatever in front of it: 一些汽车 [yī xiē qì chē], literally “one (small number) car” or “some cars”.