What's your point? That education only belongs to the "talented"? Talented in what way? What good does it do to society that the "non-talented" are not educated?
>How "ugly" a trivial "Hello, World!" does not really matter much and isn't a good indication of anything about the language's ability to handle more than "Hello, World!"
Sure, but for beginner programmers who don't have the discipline down yet, it's unnecessarily hard. I bought a Java programming book as a kid and got stuck because of a typo that produced an error message I couldn't understand. This was the time before StackOverflow and Reddit. In retrospect, this delayed my programming journey by at least a year.
Longer Hello Worlds make frustration and getting stuck like this more likely.
Huh? American and European CEOs voluntarily move manufacturing to China, now everything gets made in China. And that's somehow China discriminating western countries?
Well, considering that the US considers some political beliefs and journalism crimes, "don't go there with incriminating devices" implies restrictions on free speech and journalistic freedom. Also, privacy is not only for hiding crimes. Equating privacy with criminality is a great way to get undermine people's rights further. It's perfectly ok to think that some random TSA agent shouldn't be seeing my family photos etc. when I have done nothing wrong.
If you believe these rights are not important, that's your own opinion. But I think it's perfectly valid to criticize attacks on human rights.
It has to do with your argument of "if you don't like it, don't go there". Also, you specifically asked "who came for you" so it's direct answer to your question.
Musk has massive ego too, and he's drinking the fascist kool aid, perhaps even more than Trump himself. Massive ego is more susceptible to fascist thinking, not less.
I'm pretty sure he'd have fell in line to the fascist insanity just like all other billionaires. He lived at the time of the height of neoliberal ideology, when most people believed in the conjured public images that the tech bro CEOs gave out in PR. Behind the scenes, things were quite different. Jobs has been reported to be petty, insulting and belittling of his employees
> "A pure function which transforms the entire input into the entire output" is obviously the simplest possible architecture for many programs, but people hesitate to use that architecture because of performance concerns. In practice, the baseline performance is often faster than they expect, and it can be made much, much faster using strategies like memoisation and fine-grained reactivity.
But before React came along, you just couldn't do this without major UX breaking bugs, because of how the DOM worked.
Say you have a form that you want to change depending on the state of the app. If the user is typing in a form field while an update to the app state comes, and a pure function that transforms (app state -> DOM/HTML output) resets the form (meaning removing the old out of state DOM and replacing it with the new DOM), the user loses focus on the form. So you have to add some kind of logic where the app remembers what form input the user was focused on, where in the field the focus was, etc. The more complex your app is, the more complex the DOM reset logic became, and you cannot abstract your way out of it with pure functions, because the DOM that relies on mutation slowly creeps into your pure functions anyway.
React changed this, because it gives you a pure function interface, but resets the DOM using mutation functions i.e. native DOM methods, surgically. This is achieved with the VDOM (Virtual DOM), by diffing VDOM states and then reflecting that to the actual DOM. This means when the DOM resets, there's no problem with elements getting removed and added back in, and the focus states etc. don't get thrown away with the DOM. Before React, nothing like this existed.