Could you edit that with a link or text for the accessibility of it all?

Maybe look over my comment history esp re language usage

Nah, too much effort, like proof editing a comment. Better to just plop out comments into the lemmy commode & flush them away with a press of the Post button. Right? 😉

ducking

This is lemmy: pretty sure you can write fucking without burning our virgin eyes/ears. Maybe. Don’t quote me on that.

Possible, unlikely, worse. The most accessible content is native text with the full content structure of the original. Quoting without compromises & feeble games would be better.

what’s stopping me from just screenshoting

Images of text? Accessibility.

So, another sacrifice at the altar of social media to deliberately break a straightforward feature at the expense of people who need accessibility.

• ableism +1
• accessibility 0

Social media can be such trash.

They need to put out an advisory to stop breeding with that man.

Definitely, especially when the “damage” is meaningless, imaginary, clearly not even directed at them, and well within someone’s capacity to disregard & not take personally.

They really need to bring back the “Sticks and Stones” nursery rhyme: cultivating all this fragility & learned helplessness ain’t serving humanity.

The Mesopotamians had some cool myths extolling humanity’s ability to endure the gods’ multiple attempts to exterminate them with disease, pestilence, drought, great floods. I think people have some capacity to get over themselves & endure some ridicule not directed at them. Imagine if the Mesopotamians instead wrote legends of the gods exterminating or curtailing humanity with the slightest hint of ridicule directed elsewhere.

Enki, however, as always never at a loss for creative ideas, devised a way that he hoped would finally solve the problem caused by the quarrelling gods themselves. He decreed that from now on the humans’ lifespans would be severely limited from the outset (in biblical terms to 120 years) by the indirect ridicule of their peers.

Beyond pathetic.

That’s…such a non-issue. If that totally devastates someone, maybe they should work on their resilience or fortitude? Do we really need to pull out the world’s tiniest violin for every contingency?

Glad you understand it, though.

Where’s the innocent person?

While I get what you’re saying

You do? I don’t, because why should anyone give a fuck?

Nah, that’s ignoring context irrationally. Context matters. I’ll show.

He’s not saying “This retard thinks the SSA uses SQL”.

Can SSA not be called “the government”?

He is saying “the government” which means all of it.

So, let’s try your suggested interpretation.

This retard thinks all the government uses SQL.

That seems to agree with mine.

However, you denied ambiguity of language, and that context matters, so let’s explore that: which government? The Brazilian government? Your state government? Your local government? No? How do you know? That’s right: context.

Why stop there? There’s more context: a Social Security database was specifically mentioned.

Does “the government” always mean all of it? When a federal agent knocks someone’s door & someone gripes “The goddamn government is after me!” do they literally mean the entire government? I know from context I or anyone else can informally refer to any part of the government at any level as “the government”. I think you know this.

Likewise, when people refer to the ocean or the sky or the people, they don’t necessarily mean all of it or all of them.

Another way to check meaning is to test whether a proposition still makes sense when something obvious unstated is explicitly written out.

This retard thinks the government uses SQL. Why assume they use SQL here?

Still make sense? Yes. Could that be understood from context without explicitly writing it out? Yes.

A refrain:

Use context.

Were those his exact words? When words are ambiguous, are we selecting interpretations that serve best in the contention? Does the context suggest something obvious was left unstated? Yours seems like a forced interpretation.

1. He complains about 1 specific database.
2. Some rando assumes it’s SQL & retorts he doesn’t know it.
3. He literally writes “This retard thinks the government uses SQL.”

Always, sometimes, here? In typical Twitter fashion, it’s brief and leaves room for interpretation.

In context, always or here makes the most sense as in “This dumbass thinks the government always uses SQL.” or “This dumbass thinks the government uses SQL here.” Does it matter some other database is SQL if this one isn’t? No. With your interpretation, he pointlessly claims that it does matter for no better reason than to discredit himself. With narrower interpretations, he doesn’t. In a contention, people don’t typically make pointless claims to discredit themselves. Therefore, narrower interpretations make more sense. Use context.

All I did here was apply textbook guidelines for analyzing arguments & strawman fallacies as explained in The Power of Logic. I welcome everyone to do the same.

A problem with objecting to a proposition that misrepresents the original proposition is that the objector fails to engage with the actual argument. Instead, they argue with themselves & their illusions, which looks foolish & isn’t a valid argument. That’s why strawman is a fallacy.

The fact is there’s very little information here. We don’t know which database he’s referring to exactly. We don’t know its technology. Some of us have worked enough with local government & legacy enterprise systems to know that following any sort of common industry standards is an unsafe assumption. No one here has introduced concrete information on any of that to draw clear conclusions, though there’s an awful lot of conjecture & overreading.

He seemed to use the word de-duplicated incorrectly. However, he also explained exactly what he meant by that, so the word hardly matters. Is there a good chance he’s wrong that multiple records with the same SSN indicate fraud? Without a clear explanation of the data architecture, I think so.

I despise idiocy. Therefore, I despise what Musk is doing to the government. Therefore, I despise it when everyone else does it.

Seeing this post keep popping up in the lemmy feed is annoying when it’s clear from context that there’s nothing there but people reading more into it.

We don’t have to become idiots to denounce idiocy.

Some may be so old that they predate RDBMS/SQL.

I don’t follow. Wouldn’t that lend credence to his assertion that it’s incorrect to assume that everything in government is SQL?

People here are being irrationally obtuse about the possibility that an agency that’s existed since the 1930s may keep business-critical records on legacy systems predating relational databases. Systems serving a national agency may not migrate databases frequently.

Elisp has a nice notation for maintainably composing regexes like any other programming expression. Only language I’ve seen offer that. So instead of "/\\*\\(?:[^*]\\|\\*[^/]\\)*\\*+/", the regular expression to match C block comments could be expressed (with inline comments)

(rx "/*"                          ; Initial /*
    (zero-or-more
     (or (not (any "*"))          ;  Either non-*,
         (seq "*"                 ;  or * followed by
              (not (any "/")))))  ;  non-/
    (one-or-more "*")             ; At least one star,
    "/")                          ; and the final /

dictionary entry

ran·sack
/ˈranˌsak/
verb
past tense: ransacked; past participle: ransacked

• go hurriedly through (a place) stealing things and causing damage.
  “burglars ransacked her home”
• search through (a place or receptacle) to find something, especially in such a way as to cause disorder and damage.
  “Hollywood ransacks the New York stage for actors”

even you wrote ransack … for to denote the other sense

you can ransack your house looking for your keys

Aren’t there already other progressive parties? Look how they’re doing.

At risk at seeming like I sympathize for Musk (I don’t), anyone else read parts of the article that raise questions?

In the United States, Musk has found a powerful ally in Trump. Together, they have ransacked the federal government

ransacked? Doesn’t that usually mean plunder? They’re damaging the government in many horrible ways, however, Musk outright stealing from the government would lead to easy challenges making headlines: I wish he’d make it that easy.

Ransack for as in vigorously searching through something could be another sense, but it wasn’t used that way here. I guess it could mean rush through, causing damage. Curious word choice that I can overlook. Reading on…

She filed a complaint with a local market regulator, requesting a refund and compensation. Teslas are among the most computerized cars on the market, so Zhang asked the automaker to turn over the full pre-crash data from her car, hoping it might help explain what went wrong. Tesla refused.

“Tesla’s employees were very arrogant and tough in dealing with my complaints,” Zhang said in an interview. “I was burning with anger.”

no mention of Zhang receiving compensation

So it looks like Tesla is resisting compensating Zhang & releasing pre-crash data.

A top executive speculated to Chinese media that she “had someone behind her” and said Zhang was making a fuss because she just wanted higher compensation.

Wait, did Zhang receive any compensation? I thought she hadn’t. I still don’t know. Does the article clearly say?

Back in court as a defendant, Zhang was unable to prove that the brakes on her Tesla had indeed failed.

Besides Zhang’s words of her father’s panic that the brakes aren’t working, did she have solid evidence that the brakes did not work? Post-crash analysis? Independent analysis of untampered logs directly off the car’s hardware?

While I was ready to condemn Musk & Tesla and to ridicule the Chinese government over this, this isn’t satisfying. Not to understate all the other reasons to condemn them, which are clear & also covered in the article, this article leaves unanswered a number of critical questions that it could answer.

This would be much better with citations.

I do find this to be a little odd, kind of drastic.

Rather than drastic, there could be additional, medically informed factors that would make this totally reasonable.

According to the book Blind Spots, fallopian tubes begin certain highly deadly cancers lacking effective screening tests & that are often incurable when discovered. For someone who’s decided not to bear children, their physicians may reasonably recommend fallopian tube removal. It’s a highly effective oncological intervention.

but…

That’s where you lost me.