mozz

ITT: People who didn't understand the article

OP: You should not be bothered. The author's arguments are perfectly valid IMO, but they're way way beyond a beginner level. C is already a fairly challenging language to get your head around, and the author is going way beyond that into arguments about the fundamental theoretical underpinnings of C and its machine model, and the hellish complexities of modern microcode-and-silicon CPU design. You don't need to worry about it. You can progress your development through:

• Basic computer science data structures Python and the like
• C and the byte for byte realities <- You are here
• Step 3
• Step 4
• Microcode realities like this guy is talking about

... and not worry about step 5 until much much later.

Income != wages

What do you mean by this?

Income inequality is still increasing.

Source? Mine is here and here although I'm happy to delve into more detailed statistical tables if you want to do that.

The ultra-rich don't get most of their obscene wealth growth from wages, they get it from investments and assets

Agreed. I was careful to phrase it as "wage earners" when I was talking about wage earners at the 90th percentile losing ground; I'm sure at the 99.9th percentile it's still going up yes, which is a problem.

the fall in average household savings shows that the increased wages at the bottom isn't translating to more financial security

Can you explain a little more what you mean by this?

it's getting eaten up by increasing prices in many different sectors.

What's your source? I sent a couple already which specifically show wages growing outpacing inflation, at the bottom end of the scale. So we have historic levels of inflation because of a couple of different reasons, and the wage growth at the bottom is still beating inflation by about 7%, which means in absolute terms it's quite a bit larger than that.

Why are they using a placebo group

If the survival of the ticks was connected to whether the people thought they'd received a treatment or not, that would be a fascinating result which would far far eclipse any result they found out about Lyme disease

That's almost exactly what I said. And I agree, it won't be effective [e.g. 'help' this particular cause] if libs keep running cover for his campaign regardless of what he does.

Nothing I've said about protesting until the election has changed. Being loud so other people see the lack of support raises the stakes for Biden so he is compelled to reason.

Yeah, I get that. Makes sense to me.

Like I said, you don't think the risk is worth the cause, that's fine.

Not exactly. A different way to say it would be, the cause is so important and the risk to the Palestinian people (among many others) so potentially catastrophic if Trump wins, that I'm hesitant to support this strategy. But yeah I get where you're coming from.

The reason why support for Ukraine is so shaky is that Republicans have been thoroughly compromised by the nation

One reason why support for Israel is so unanimous is that all politicians have been compromised to some degree by AIPAC's influence. It's just being done in a "legal" fashion and a lot more competently than the (also fairly effective) job that Russia is doing.

As much as Netanyahu is a terrible person, he did not start this war

This conflict has been going on for a long time before October.

had absolutely no other choice than to respond to Hamas murderous rampage with a campaign to remove the terrorist organization

Absolutely false. Or rather -- it is false that he was obligated to respond by starving children and everyone else, bombing hospitals, and absolutely guaranteeing the continuation of the conflict. Do you really think there's a single person in Palestine today who doesn't want to see Israel eradicated off the face of the planet?

If your goal is to eradicate Hamas, this course of action is the absolute last one you would choose.

• They could have chosen to pursue a genuine end to the conflict and address its root causes (which basically boil down to Israel wanting to take land from the Palestinians, reduce them to subhuman status with the society they're imposing on them, and kill them without warning or recourse any time they feel like -- which is why Israel doesn't want to change anything about that.)
• They could have chosen to invoke a war against Hamas itself, while still being at least mindful-on-the-surface of civilian casualties. It would be difficult, since their treatment of Palestinians means that basically anyone who's an adult could potentially be a Hamas supporter, but them's the breaks when you oppress an entire population for 75 years; you create a situation that's boo hoo difficult for yourself to deal with "humanely."
• They could have done literally nothing; it's not ideal, but at least it wouldn't have involved killing thousands of children and absolutely guaranteeing continued support for Hamas from this generation of Palestinians and maybe beyond.

Hell, any nation on Earth, including the most peace-loving ones, would have started a full-on war in reaction to attack like this.

In the aftermath of World War 2, the allies faced the issue of what to do with the nation that had invented a whole new type of crime against humanity. What they did was:

• Involve the international community
• Ensure that anyone accused of this crime would have a chance to defend themselves against the charges with legal representation
• Took the "innocent" (relatively speaking) civilians of the country, made some effort to rebuild their country, and carefully set up structures which would address the root causes that had led to the breeding ground for hatred that had been created where the problem had festered in the first place.

And, will you look at that, it worked, and we don't have a continuing insurrection decade after decade in Germany today, with an oppressive open-air prison for all the German people which keeps flaring up into terrorism and murder.

I'm not excusing any murder, kidnapping, or rape of the innocent on October 7th. The people who did it should be punished. The holocaust was orders of magnitude worse, though, and somehow we managed to react to that without starving millions of children and continuing an endless cycle of suffering even into the present day.

Seems to me like you simply don't believe this particular cause is worth threatening this particular harm.

Very wrong. I just don't believe that risking Trump getting elected will help this particular cause. I think there's an significant chance -- I am 100% serious about this -- that the United States would come out at the end of it with an apartheid regime for Arabs similar to Israel's. I think there's an excellent chance that Israel would be emboldened by Trump to actually go in and literally kill all the Palestinians, completing the genocide. I think Trump's election would be catastrophic for the Palestinians, far worse than today, in addition to a long list of other people it would be catastrophic for.

That's why I brought up so many times the example of Boutwell vs Connor. Applying pressure to Boutwell sounds great. Refusing to support him in his election against Connor, because he's a segregationist, doesn't make any fucking sense. It seems like you keep insisting that I object to the first, when I don't and keep telling you that I don't. What I object to is the second. Surely that difference makes some sense?

Well, which candidate do you think they're most similar to on a personal level? I won't say that's crazy. Him being in power isn't going to do them any particular favors any more than he will anyone else in the country, but it's not weird if something about him resonates with them.

I don't think they're saying literally that the same weapons are being sent to one destination or else the other -- the issue is the authorization being there or not.

I think the point is that providing weapons for Israel so they can continue the slaughter, basically the whole US political spectrum except for a few scattered outliers is behind, whereas weapons for Ukraine is this big struggle and debate with a lot of people on the pro-invasion side. And even the people who are saying "We MUST arm Ukraine so she can defend herself, what's going on in an offense against humanity" are also pretty much giving Netanyahu a stern waggling of the finger (if that) and a hearty handshake and a big check in support, as his ongoing genocide continues.

You're right, I should amend my comment to note that it wasn't non violent and basically a small-scale civil war

Oh, hang on

(Actually, I do think I should have said it was nonviolent until they started shooting railroad workers, since that one came first. I'm a little fuzzy on the exact chronology but I think that would have been more accurate yes. The person I was responding to just said miners so I said miners.)

I wouldn't be committing to voting for Hindenburg 7 months before casting a ballot, especially if doing so not only doesn't address the underlying problem that created the NSPD's popularity but would also likely continue to contribute to those conditions.

Yeah, I feel you on this. I think we're just looking at it from two different perspectives.

I don't think Biden's on Lemmy. I'm not looking at this like he's going to read my messages and think "Okay I got mozz locked in, I don't have to change my Gaza policy now." I'm just saying my thought process out loud; I'm going to vote for Hindenburg instead of Hitler pretty much whatever else happens. I'm not trying to do some kind of bluff where I claim that I'm undecided as a way of putting pressure on, not explicitly telling the Biden campaign that I'm committed to him, so that he'll be forced into different behavior patterns on Gaza.

But the other way does make sense to me. Like the "uncommitted" voters in the primary, or protests at his events because he's abetting mass murder, that makes sense to me. If I were directly in contact with Biden, would I try to do this artifice of pretending I was undecided because of Gaza, that even though Trump is directly supportive of monsters who are 10 times worse and more powerful than Netanyahu, abetting Netanyahu is so bad that I might not vote for Biden? So as to put more pressure on him to change his policy? IDK, maybe. I am not a political specialist but it seems like maybe that's a sensible way to do it.

Protesting biden now wouldn't be effective if we all -publicly- got in line and said "we'll sure, he's complicit in genocide but we're all still voting for him anyway". That would be quite a dumb way to protest and put pressure on him to get anything done, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, I get that. I do think that direct action on Gaza is probably more effective than just typing out on Lemmy that you're uncommitted in your voting, and I think doing the latter (if it's a bluff, which it would be in my case) runs a little bit of a risk of some other voter reading it and taking it seriously and being swayed to not vote for Biden and abetting mass murder much much worse than that in Gaza. But basically, the core of what you're saying, it does make sense to me, yes.

You could just as easily blame the SDP for not joining the KDP instead, since the KDP was reacting to the same failures of government the voters of the NSDAP were.

Yes, absolutely. Responsibility can be shared; almost any big disaster is a result of multiple overlapping causes where any number of people could have taken action to make it less likely or prevent it.

In fact, I think the Democrats are a lot more responsible for creating the conditions that led to the rise of Trump than the SDP. The SDP at least had genuine hardship imposed on their country from outside, whereas the establishment Democrats ever since the 1990s have simply been selling out the working class, in an economy that's raking in money hand over fist, because they could and they assumed that nothing bad would ever come of it (to anyone that they thought mattered.)

I especially don't attribute blame to citizen voters supporting the KDP, because not only does that not matter as much in a parliamentary system, they're also reacting to the same failures of government that the NSDAP were.

So no, I don't find that argument convincing, and I likely would not have supported the SDP given the availability of other options.

Okay, that's fair. But what if there weren't other options? If we used a parliamentary system in the US, and we were talking about voting for the Democrats or else a genuine leftist party, I would be 100% in agreement with you about voting for the left instead of the Democrats.

What if Germany used the FPTP system, and you were voting for Hindenburg or Hitler directly to lead the country? Do you think that someone in that hypothetical election who refused to vote for Hindenburg in 1932, because he hadn't done enough to earn the vote, would still feel justified in that decision in 1945?

(Biden isn't Hindenburg; Hindenburg doesn't have a direct analogue but he would be more someone like John McCain IMO, but that's not directly relevant to the question I don't think.)

Germany was a parliamentary democracy at the time, are you asking if id have voted for the SDP or KDP?

Precisely yes (or not voted at all if you felt no party really was representative of you properly)

Are you suggesting having two parties split the NSDAP opposition vote is what lead to their accent to power?

Yes, in addition to splitting the political energy in general

Or are you asking I'd be protesting Hindenburg to take more direct action against the NSDAP or more firmly address the crisis that lead to their growth?

I'm suggesting that the communists spending energy opposing the SDP and Hindenburg for fairly valid reasons, when there were much more pressing threats to the safety and security of the entire world including themselves to spend that energy on, made their concerns about the establishment left (however valid) laughable in restrospect.

But the thing that makes our situation so much different is that Biden isn't splitting the vote with another party, he's in command of the only opposition to Trump.

It sounds to me like you're saying that splitting the vote between Biden and nobody (by not voting) is a good thing to do, to push him to the left. I fail to see how that is a better idea than splitting the vote between the SDP and KDP, and I think the results can potentially be pretty similar.

It sounds like you really, really don't want to answer this question plainly. Would your logic also apply to refusing to support the SDP (or for that matter Hindenburg) against Hitler?