I’ve met many people that have killed people. I didn’t think that was all that unusual. I know for sure two people I’ve met had killed people and there’s a whole bunch more that range from maybe to probably.

Bullshit. The number one cause of antisemitism is hateful assholes.

You are showing the abuser mentality by saying it’s someone else’s fault that abuse happens.

Stop rationalizing hatred. You’re part of the problem.

Yeah… source needed.

I thought it had more to do with the fact that there isn’t a ≠ key on most people’s keyboards.

I always found it hilarious that the villain in Robocop 2 is actually called Robocop 2.

Best we can do send a live video feed from a camera on the robot and have someone in India control the robot.

It’s like having a robot, you just have to accept that someone is seeing everything you do in your home!

Typical pattern with this guys:

1. It didn’t happen. FAKE NEWS!
2. It’s someone else’s fault.
3. Why are you still talking about that? We have more important things to deal with!
4. There were extenuating circumstances…
5. It’s actually a good thing that happened.

So we’re currently at step 4 with this one. In a couple of days they will be saying that it’s actually good to do war crimes.

You think you’re an expert but you’re not! Some serious Freddy-Kruger effect happening here.

It’s literally the textbook example of a war crime. Seriously, firing at people in the water after their vessel has been sunk is the example they use in military handbooks to explain what an illegal action is.

Apparently it’s against Pentagon policy to install a map hack.

Hmmm… for some reason having 14 beers has made the prospect of having a 15th beer seem like a very good idea.

Yup, it’s definitely just some religious dogma going on there.

You think it’s a good career choice to conform and never question anything so you wind up being indistinguishable from an LLM? Ok, good luck!

A constant inside a function is not constant to the computer. It’s only constant within the scope of the function. So it’s not constant to the computer since every time the function is called the “constant” will have a different value.

Do you even know what a real constant is?

You maybe need to rethink some things.

I’m questioning why things are being done in the way they’re being done and you’re saying I’m being close minded? Also spewing out some more jargon like that’s going to impress me?

And LOL at “it will feel natural after you get used to it.” I don’t think you understand the concept about something feeling natural. Like I say I just make stuff const because someone put some bullshit in the linter. Enforcing dumb rules in a linter is the opposite of keeping an open mind, it forcing preferences on people.

I think I’ve confirmed it’s just FE religious dogma. Just keep on repeating whatever Theo says and people will think you know what you’re talking about.

Stylistically, you’re changing the array when you add something to it. Javascript is a janky language in the best of times, but FE devs like to artificially introduce additional unnecessary complexities on top of the jank.

const is simpler. why would I declare an array as let if I’m not reassigning?

Why would you declare a const that’s going to have different data every time to function is called?

Now I’m thinking it’s a form of gatekeeping. Just an excuse for FE devs to throw out terms like “immutable” to make it sound like they know what they’re taking about. Y’all need to constantly sound like you know what you’re talking about when dealing with users, pretending weird stylistic choices have real technical reasons for them. But the BE devs know what you’re saying is complete bullshit LOL.

Pushing something onto an array isn’t changing the array? It’s not changing the reference to the array, but from a style standpoint it doesn’t make sense.

And if you’re declaring a const within the scope of a function, it’s still allocating memory when it enters the scope and disposing it when it leaves the scope, same as a variable. There’s no performance benefit to do this.

Something like const CONSTANT_VALUE = “This never changes” has a performance benefit and is actually how other languages use constants. The value will always be the same, the compiler understands this and can optimize accordingly. If you’re declaring an iterator or the result of calling a webservice to be const it’ll be a different value every time it runs that code, so it’s not something a compiler can optimize. In style terms, it’s a value that’s different every time you get to that line of code, so why would you want to call it constant?

You’re comment indicates the FE dev obsession with always using const stems from a misunderstanding of how computers work. But of course many religious beliefs originate from a misunderstanding of the world. Whatever man, I just make it a const to make the linter happy, because it’s dumb FE bullshit LOL.

Yeah for whatever reason, FE devs want to make everything a const. It’s like a religious belief or something, it’s really kinda weird.

const fun = () => { const something = “whatever” const array = []; array.push(someting)

for (const thing of array) { if (thing === ‘whatever’) blah(thing) } }

Semicolons? Optional. Which quotes you should use? Whatever you feel like! But you must declare things as a const wherever possible! Even if it’s an array that you’re going to be changing, declare it as a const because you should know that you can push things into a const array, and since it’s possible to declare it as a const, you must declare it as a const.

Why is this? Nobody knows, but it’s important to FE devs that you use const.

Yeah and some clocks have a second hand and some don’t sometimes clocks use roman numerals sometimes they’re arabic numerals, and that’s if it can understand based on context if someone saying just “clock” in the data the scraped is referring to a digital clock or an analog clock.

In general LLMs don’t understand logic, though I suspect they have given some of them ability to run some code validation logic (that’s not actually AI) when you tell it to generate code in some languages. I say this because I’ve had it produce some code that could compile, but it seemingly put some example code into a function and had some other example code that needed to call that function with another parameter so it just created a third function that accepts the additional parameter and calls the first function (throwing away that parameter). It compiles but doesn’t have any understanding of how stupid that is on a logical level. So it seems like it’s just trying stuff until it’s capable of compiling without there being any understanding of how anything works.

Not only did they take down an F-35, they took down the biggest F-35 ever made!

Defense production is the key to all of these scenarios. Russia is off the board for about a decade, and most likely they’d go after Ukraine again in a decade, and if not Ukraine it would be the Baltics. If you have defense production we can produce more weapons and munitions before they lose any conflict in Europe.

With China they’re bottled up inside a line of islands… Philippines, Taiwan, Japan. They can’t get to Canada unless they can take Taiwan first. Again, with defense production we can supply Taiwan with what they need to repel an invasion.

Everyone looks at army size but seemingly forgets to look at a map. Army size doesn’t matter if you can’t get that army across an ocean. So it’s all about navy, and Russia isn’t all that good at navies, never has been. China is building a large navy, but they don’t have a lot of experience, and amphibious assaults are ridiculously difficult, and it’s not likely they would succeed in taking Taiwan. China is building Aircraft carriers (which they don’t need for Taiwan since it’s within range of airfields in mainland China) but they aren’t building a lot of dedicated landing ships (though it’s supposed the could appropriate civilian RORO ships), so it seems they’re doing the typical authoritarian military that’s designed for intimidation more than actually being effective. But in any case we should be more concerned with defending Taiwan than direct conflict with China, because that has to happen first… and even that looks unlikely to anyone that hasn’t been influenced by Lockheed Martin’s propaganda.

But the bottom line is no one is going to attack the Western Hemisphere without permission from the US. So really the only real threat is the US or a US proxy. To prevent that we don’t need to straight up win, we need to first make a war too expensive for the US to attempt. Secondly if they do make the foolish decision to invade Canada, we need to have the capability of killing a few thousand American soldiers over the course of an occupation and they will become war weary and leave.

So we need strong alliances in terms of defense production so we’ll supply other countries if they’re attacked and they will supply us if we’re attacked.

Submarines are great for both an invasion of Taiwan and for making a US invasion of Canada expensive. Not that we could destroy the US navy with a few submarines, but having the capability of taking out a few ships and hitting some targets on the US coast makes an invasion expensive for them. Sure they could eventually track them all down, but they are going to take some damage before they do.

The Gripen is actually a great option too. They’re relatively low maintenance (it’s a fighter jet so still pretty high maintenance, but way less than the F-35) and they’re designed for a conflict where they’d need to potentially use regular roads as airstrips. Again it’s not about destroying the US Air Force, but just inflicting some expensive damage.

The goal would be to have a Pentagon assessment of the cost of a war with Canada to have the highest dollar amount as possible, since that’s all that matters to the psychopaths in power down there right now.