Hanlon's razor never applies when politics or money is involved. Best to just suspend your judgement instead of giving politicians the benefit of the doubt.
This is explained in the talk he gave. One of the benefits is that with new syntax the semantics can change without breaking backward compatibility, e.g. [[nodiscard]] can become default for all functions written in the new style.
My impression from reading about chess engines online is that drawing is far simpler if that is your explicit goal. Several comments online on different websites claims that they are able to end games in draws against stockfish.
I agree. My guess is that institutional malice is fully explained by economic incentives 99% of the time. Which the version from the other comment cover: "Never attribute to stupidity, that which can be adequately explained by economic incentives"
I personally find this saying extremely overrated and damaging in many cases. Especially considering the pacifying effect it can have on attempting to undo certain injustices.
Best use of it is in your personal life with family, friends, retail worker in your local grocery shop etc.
The 3 children per woman limit is still the smallest number that accommodates for the 2.1 average required for replacement level.
To achieve equilibrium and avoid rapid growth the limit must be set to 3 and then hope that the average will be drawn down enough by the women who can't/won't have children for various reasons.
Not advocating for this policy, and I am not considering how well it works in practice and the morality. This is just a reductionist model.
It could also be that they see no scenario ahead where they want the average number of children per woman to be above 3. I don't think China wants back to exponential growth ever. They probably want to find their equilibrium.
Consider if something unlikely happens that completely changes the dynamic of families, e.g. a cultural shift where women stay more at home and have more babies. If the average family started having more than 3 children, they would consider bringing back this system, which could cause big social problems, as it costs more social capital to bring back an unpopular system than to simply maintain it.
Concurrency/Parallelism is the number one reason I move a project from Python to any other language. It's one the few areas where Python can't provide a gracious frontend or an acceptable runtime, but it is very impressive how much the community is willing to do to mitigate the challenges.
Kind of ironic that I would agree with you. The reason I still wrote it is that my opinion just recently changed from liking C++ but understanding the pitfalls to a more pragmatic this is not worth the time or effort.
If we look at programming languages as tools, it makes sense for them to get out of date and new ones taking their place, with all the lessons learned.
So its possible that programming languages like C++ that keeps extending their own life through adding features (while keeping weaknesses), will ultimately cost the community/industry more in the long run.