Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive.
Yes, that's what I'm counting on, since I assume that ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution. Unfortunately, the most whackiest, edgiest religions seem to be the most fit. Therefore my answer to the top level post.
I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall.
Fair enough, you didn't. I apologize. I lost track of the chain of posters and mixed you up with the first poster who didn't seem to recognize the dangers of passing belief to children.
As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.
That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn't seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.
That’s not proselytising, it’s a while different thing
I don't see your point. How is brainwashing children ok when wololo-ing people is not? Even from an egocentric perspective, you have to live in a society.
Pretty sure you can be born into judaism, though. Chances are, it is even the default scenario with even semi-religious parents.
That's not "keeping to yourself" to me. That's like passing the cigarettes to your kids.
If religious can keep to themselves
Since religions compete, that doesn't sound feasible.
What about square screens?
inb4 chaotic neckpain
but I could see it being a good step forward for more meaningful features to be added in the future.
I think you are right. And that is unfortunate.
My bad, I’m not deep enough into our frontend stack to realize Hjeilsberg already did what he does best - ruining enums. (I guess he is not to blame for global imports in c#, so i can not add ‘questionable import module/namespace ideas’.)
And it seems like this proposal contains type declarations (in order to compensate for their enums), among other typescript specific things. So, guess it is option B, then.
That’s not a positive, though.
Depending on how it pans out, it’s either not useful enough. Who the hell doesn’t use namespaces or enums. Or - as
These constructs are not in the scope of this proposal, but could be added by separate TC39 proposals.
implies - a door opener to outsource TypeScripts problem unto other peoples and not to investing into improving WebAssembly. That’s just MS being lazy and making their problems other peoples problems.
I feel like this would be the ideal scenario: things working right out of the box without needing a compile step or additional tooling.
It’s just annotations. No proposed semantics of a type system which your browser could check on its own.
whichadose
Possibly. Hard to tell how much time that would have bought.
It was indeed three pawns to introduce it. Nice eye for detail.
Trump clearly is fascist (and so is Bolsonaro, for the sake of argument), but that’s just two samples. Whereas e.g. france got rid of that Napoleon dude (you know who I mean) in favor of Macron.
Hot, but probably not too hot take: Other factors aside, people got dumber due to covid. They got literal brain damage. So when a reasonably intelligent person would be able to tell fascism as insustainable, they wouldn’t after their second or so infection.
This, this thread is basically this songs bridge exemplified. 😅
Perl is panel 1, except it’s missingno. doing the talking.
So that’s what inspired Vigil…
How compiler builders see peppa:
even number of nostrils
Missed opportunity.
Unfortunately, no.