If you want to get cancer in your own house go ahead.

I agree with the sentiment of both you and the person I originally applied to. Smoking is a blight and I wish it would go away. I simply don’t think prohibition is the way to do it.

Mainly the health service but also they create insane amounts of litter

Vaping also creates an insane amount of litter. I wish vaping would go away just as much as I do cigarettes.

More like prohibition doesn’t work

You can do PGO with GCC, though it takes extra steps of course

Targeted ads are obviously way more effective and therefore generate more money. But it’s not the only way.

I’m not so sure this has turned out to be all that true

Some rust proponents having this attitude is probably part of the problem.

I think rust has good ideas and may even become the default systems language in the mid-term. I find it irritating that there is a very vocal subset of rust proponents that tend to insist that every project in every language needs to be rewritten in rust immediately. I suspect that is also why other people are down on rust.

There is a video

The stuff in jenis sets up a lot of stuff way later in the series

Usually it doesn’t matter what abstractions you choose when you try to factor them to support hypothetical future work, because chances are you incorrectly anticipate future needs.

In other words, generic code that only supports one use case will almost certainly have to be deconstructed to allow a good generic implementation for 2 use cases, so it is better to just write simple code and factor code out when you can see the real commonalities.

In other, other words, KISS, YAGNI

I hate reading code like this. It means that there is a bunch of object or global state that could be getting modified by anything all over the place that I can’t see just by looking at the method. In other words, if you say you understand this method, it is because you are making assumptions about other code that might be wrong.

I’ll take a 30 line pure function over a web of methods changing member state every time.

1. This is completely besides the point, but I personally view factory farming as different than what happens in nature.

2. This is also beside the point, but you are making some wild logical leaps here. The fact that I personally don’t want to support factory farming because I think it is cruel in no way means that I think other people “enjoy animal suffering” and assuming that is arbitrarily assigning thoughts I have never had to me.

3. None of the above is really relevant because I should be allowed to go about my day without justifying my dietary choices just as people that eat meat should.

In my experience it’s usually more like: Them: here have some of this meat thing Me: No thanks Them: why not it’s really good try some Me: i don’t eat meat Them: but why? Me: to reduce animal cruelty and environmental harm Them: wow how dare you be so judgy

I’m not really sure how I’m supposed to not offend this type of person in this situation and frankly I don’t think it’s my fault or my problem they’re offended. My theory is that that agree with my reasons but rather than change or live with the cognitive dissonance they just lash out at anyone that reminds them they could be living more ethically even if they basically MAKE them say it.

Blaming vegans for that is bullshit, frankly