Rich industrialists wanted to use chinese labour to stiff local American workers. This was and remains one of the goals of globalist expansion. Now that they want to stiff chinese workers as their wages rose, and don’t want people stealing their stolen products.

For all the talk of meritocracy these Americans don’t like to play fair.

I am pro socialism and asking what kind of details is missing in pro-socialist arguments that you find capitalists explain well?

There is an aspect of wanting to dump manufacturing to labour violating/lax labour countries without transfering some knowledge that I don’t like about this kind of “decoupling”. Laundering it as a solely national security issue/CCP/slave labour I feel lets cheapskate industrialists who hate paying livable wages off the hook. I mean these were the same industrialists that laid off their own country workers to setup industry in China in the first place. I feel like the national security angle is just a happy coincidence. For goodness sake it’s Foxconn. There is no guarantee that the conditions of labour in their factories is going to change because they moved out of China.

I am predicting that news headlines 10-20 years from now will read similar to “Mexico decoupling” or wherever else dared to benefit off outsourcing.

The whole national security posturing is not entirely honest.

You know what I figured out as a man? Just listen to the other party in this order of increasing priority: body language, facial expression, their words. MAIN THING TO AVOID: Never assume they are/will be comfortable with you. Never assume consent with body language or facial expression. If they want to be romantically involved THEY will approach you.

Before I was married my mind was on alert talking women in order not to come off as creepy. This was with women whom I had purely platonic relationships like my coworkers or college mates. I am aware the effect men have with their staring. To this day when I am walking on the street I make sure to not walk behind women. If I can i overtake them. If not I just change directions even if my destination is straight ahead. Treating the nonfamily women in my life like I would treat men should be the right thing to do… but its not easy with the reputation that men have among women.

So my point effectively is just don’t be creepy and pushy. Just be polite and reciprocate interest. Otherwise just treat them like your sister or guy friend.

Your take needs evidence to prove that Russia indeed has the low-end chip market captured.

People think your “Russia has the low-end chip manufacturing market cornered” argument is not backed by evidence.

One thing neo-liberals and dictator loving pretend-communists agree on: Reddit is a cesspool.

Shit like this is why meat eaters are not convinced going vegetarian isn’t a conspiracy.

I am quite cheeky for saying this but:

How is it leaky if the default paradigm of any sequential program is the expectation that it will block? If i write blocking socket code I know my thread is blocked until read() returns.

If i am writing async socket code I know to wait for poll or whatever it is that is the correct way to wait nowadays. My design would reflect that. The blocking is just moved to another thread effectively and this abstraction is packaged as a Future.

Asynchronous code does not require the rest of your code to be asynchronous. I can’t say the same for blocking code.

Well this is just stating a tautology isn’t it?

Edit:

It would be a Hurculean effort, and I don’t think it’s a sustainable approach. If you’re writing a higher level library, it would be a lot to ask to check if your dependency’s dependency’s dependency maybe reads from a socket.

I guess I understand what’s the argument here.

The author wants a safeguard against libraries that are blocking with compiler checks. I agree it is a nice thing to have. But they could have mentioned that without saying “blocking code is leaky abstraction”.

No that is done by capitalists

What kind of details can you not fathom in a functioning sustainable system? It shouldn’t be more difficult than “more! MORE AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYBODY ELSE!”

Money can’t buy a stroke which i just acquired reading the first few sentences of your comment.

Not aware of the toxicity… any starting point for this storyline?