Yeah that’s true. The headline is asserting something that I don’t think Musk has actually said he will do. On the other hand, I’m having trouble thinking of any random idea Musk has had that he didn’t attempt to follow through on.

“It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots,” explained Musk.

I don’t know why your comment was downvoted when I got to it. It’s a perfectly valid question. To claim in incomprehensible being wouldn’t do any given thing is just as objectively baseless as claiming that they would do that thing.

I’ll be perfectly honest with you. I have never liked the Cybertruck. It looked ridiculous when it came out and there were various online articles that agreed with this at the time. Though I will grant you that there were also a lot of people on the Elon bandwagon who thought it was awesome. One of my best friends actually put down the deposit for one and he and I had a lively debate about it. It was a controversial thing from day 1. And looking back now, this might have been my first clue that Elon was headed off the deep end.

Right, although this idea is somewhat challenged by the story of Sigurðr who is by all accounts the best, bravest, and most famous of all Norse heroes with exploits that include slaying a dragon and receiving personal assistance from Odin on multiple occasions. Sigurðr Is stabbed by his brother-in-law and is able to actually cut the guy in half before dying himself but is then attested as going to Hel in various ways but never to Valhǫll.

It’s unclear why this is and I haven’t seen much discussion about it in scholarly discourse. There is, of course, lots of discussion about what Hel really is/means. But it may have been something implicit in the story that the ancient Norse would have inferred as being obvious. For example, maybe he lost favor with Odin by rescuing the Valkyrie Sigrdrífa from the sleep curse that Odin had placed upon her.

This sort of an idea shows up in Sonatorrek, ostensibly written by Egill Skalagrimsson. In that poem, Egill is lamenting the loss of his son who drowned in a boating accident. In that context, Egill talks about this tragedy in terms of Odin having broken off friendship with him. As a result, Egill has decided to cease sacrificing to Odin, and the consequence is that he now has a vision of Hel standing on the headland waiting for him.

I should actually read/watch that one of these days.

Nah this was a deliberately comedic scene in Gautreks Saga where members of a family keep sacrificing themselves for absurd reasons. There is some possibility that something like this could have happened in some parts of Norse society but there’s no evidence it was a requirement for entry into Valhalla (Old Norse Valhǫll).

In fact, whereas the Prose Edda (a 13th-century narrative guide to understanding skaldic poetry) does claim that those who fall in battle end up in Valhǫll, and this is supported by evidence from pre-Christian poems such as Grímnismál, Norse mythological sources are actually littered with attestations of people dying in combat but not going to Valhǫll, as well as people dying outside of combat but still ending up in Valhǫll.

One example of this is the character Sinfjǫtli from Vǫlsunga Saga. Sinfjǫtli is poisoned by his mother-in-law at a party, and his father Sigmundr carries his dead body down to the shore where a ferryman offers to take it across the water. Once the body is on the boat, it turns out the ferryman is Odin and he disappears with the body which is elsewhere confirmed to have ended up in Valhǫll in the poem Eiríksmál.

Scholar Jens Peter Schjødt theorized in Pre-Christian Religions of the North that entry into Valhǫll is predicated on a person being dedicated to Odin, which is something a person could do for themselves ritualistically (there are references to marking oneself with a spear for Odin) or could also be done to you by an enemy who has set out to kill you and intends to “give” you to Odin as a way of showing his own dedication.

she probably just made it all up

Or stole it from the weeping angels on Doctor Who

The way I do it, patches are backward-compatible bug fixes. Minor versions are additional features that don’t change existing functionality. Major versions include breaking changes. I totally get that it seems crazy to bump to another major version just over a string format change. But overall the philosophy works well IMO.

IMO it doesn’t really matter what you said the method was for. If you change the format of a string that is returned by a method that returns a string, there’s a risk of breaking user code, even if it’s just in the context of their dev environment.

Philosophically, whether or not the behavior of your API has changed is completely disconnected from whether or not others are using it “right”. If I can depend on a function to return a certain type of value when given certain arguments, and if it doesn’t produce other side effects, then it doesn’t matter what the docs say or what the function is named, I can use it in any context where I need that type of return value and have this type of arguments available. This type of function is just mapping data to other data. If you modify the function in such a way that the return value changes after being given the same arguments, that’s a breaking change in my book.

Maybe if the alternative to building a horse barn in 1910 was building a garage that was so expensive only like 5% of the population could afford it.

I’m actually attempting to exit this conversation at the moment. I initially commented when I was having a bad day and would rather that I hadn’t.

That’s only true within the sphere of Marxist ideology and is not a widely-held distinction made by the rest of society. i.e., actual current law wherein:

Private property refers to the ownership of property by private parties - essentially anyone or anything other than the government. Private property may consist of real estate, buildings, objects, intellectual property (copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets). The transfer of a private property commonly takes place by the owner’s consent or through a sale or as a gift.

Outside of Marxist ideology, and in actual practice, individuals are one class of private entity, making personal property a type of private property. The average person can not be expected to fully understand the nuances of how Marxism alters these definitions, nor accept them in practicality.

Fine.

Google, define communism:

a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Britannica:

communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

dictionary.com:

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state

Merriam-Webster:

a: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

b: a theory advocating elimination of private property

Oxford English Dictionary:

A theory that advocates the abolition of private ownership, all property being vested in the community…

Remember that it is unnecessary to cite sources when dealing with common knowledge.

Where did you get this definition? Look up communism in any standard dictionary or encyclopedia and you will see that it entails the removal of private property.

Edit: ugh, y’all got me arguing about communism again. I need to go outside.

At least we are disagreeing respectfully :)

I think you must have inferred something from my comment that I didn’t actually say. I didn’t say every communist country ceases to exist. I also didn’t say that communism can’t generate a large economy.

What I said was that it has a 100% failure rate of achieving its goals, where those goals are economic equality, and elimination of poverty and class divisions. Most open pro-communists today have an additional goal of increasing access to basic human rights which communism has historically failed at as well. I did mention that some communist states have failed outright.

In the case of China, which you alluded to, note that China deliberately weakened their communism in the 90s as part of a series of economic reforms that introduced capitalist principles designed to stimulate growth. Specifically, agriculture was de-collectivized, Chinese business were opened to foreign investment, permission was granted for entrepreneurs to start businesses, state-owned industries were privatized, and many price controls were removed. By 2005, the private sector was responsible for 70% of China’s GDP. There is no reason to believe that China’s economy would be anywhere near as large as it is today absent these reforms.

But is that what you personally want out of your system? A large economy? Is that what matters most?

Yeah I get you. But it’s important to realize that we’re talking about much more than a handful of attempts. I see the value in learning from history and iterating on processes to try and get better over time. But if we’re honestly striving for the best system for humanity, what we shouldn’t do is say, “I really want it to be communism so let’s just assume that must be the right answer and keep trying it over and over again until it works.” At some point you do have to be willing to try something new.

It’s my opinion that communism has had more than a fair shot and has been eliminated from the running. But I am also not so crazy as to immediately disregard some new communist paradigm that theoretically works in some new way that is designed to fix the problems that continually appeared in communist systems historically. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen it presented yet. And it’s also not what these “western teenagers” (as the meme calls them) are advocating for. They use language and symbols characteristic of very specific brands of communism that were massive historical failures in terms of preserving human rights and eliminating poverty and class divisions.

I think fundamentally most people would agree with that. The problem with communism though is that it’s not just a staple of the USSR. There is something on the order of 48 countries that have experienced state-sponsored communism in relatively recent times and it has never once succeeded in achieving these goals but tends to exacerbate poverty, class division, and government oppression of human rights, if not resulting in completely failed states.

Some will read this and assume I am advocating for capitalism. I am not. Asserting problems with communism does not imply capitalism is perfect or even good. But if we do choose to abandon capitalism, the wrong decision is to move to a system with a 100% failure rate of achieving its goals over dozens of historical attempts. As the meme suggests, many Eastern Europeans are old enough to have personal experience with those failures.

Where communism can work well is on a smaller, voluntary scale. When people choose to get together and establish their own rules for pooling resources, small communities can sometimes live quite satisfactorily this way. But no, if we are willing to call capitalism a failure based on its history we have to be honest enough to say the same thing about state-sponsored communism.

Haha, makes sense. For me, I just learned to accept it.