I can see it being a political calculus for the ICC to garner as much support as possible, and not just from their traditional supporters. The stigma that it’s merely a tool, using justice in selective ways to further Western interest, strongly dissuades many 3rd world countries from seeing it as a force of true justice. If the ICC truly seeks to have justice delivered, they cannot rely on just nations like Germany, France, or the UK for support, and they will be strongly crippled if, say, more than half the countries in the world no longer see it as legitimate. So this could be an attempt at sending a message to all nations of what it’s setting out to do, which is good, since even if, like you said, the masks fall off Western nations, there is an entity that can provide other nations with grounds to enact justice for themselves against these forces.

I know many will see this as a futile gesture but I’ll try to put out some reasonings that it’s may not be all that futile. The warrant may not do what it sets out to do, which is to put Netanyahu and Gallant in trial and prosecuted, but it will serve itself in other indirect ways.

It can be political ammunition in diplomatic talks. Nations in support of the Palestinians, many of which are small, can use this to gain some leverage against countries that give no shits about the ICC like the US, however little that is (though given we’re going to have Trump back in the WH, it’s basically pointless). It’s also useful as another ammo for them to back out of unfavorable deals, citing national opinion on the genocide in Gaza.

Of course, this potentially benefits the ICC as well, though it can certainly go very wrong. Western nations may very well rally behind Israel and pull support off the ICC, further crippling it. So this is hopefully a well-calculated move from the ICC after reading the tea leaves. It can benefit the ICC internationally as it has always been criticized to be pro-Western, and this may help to ease some of their reputation with non-Western nations.

In a world where cooperation and trust between nations is slowly crumbling, and I may just be trying to be optimistic here because hell knows if that cooperation was ever really a thing, this gesture, however overt, isn’t something we shouldn’t welcome.

One case where I find it useful, tho it operates in a more limited way, is code in block blocks within code comments in Rust, which are also printed out in the generated documentation. They essentially get ran as part of your unit tests. This is great for making sure that, eg, your examples left in code comments actually work, especially if they’re written in a way that functions like a unit test.

Not all of us here are from the States buddy.

So I guess you could say

they couldn’t do it without [the] (sic) US

Having lots of loaned words don’t mean much when English and Japanese have vastly different grammatical structures. There are also lots of non-English loaned words in Japanese, and from experience, the Japanese don’t always know which language a word is borrowed from, nor should the speakers of the language really need to care. In any case, grammar makes up an important part of a language, though it doesn’t come for free if you aren’t already exposed to the grammatical structure before.

On the last point you talked about, “prove it definitely will become such a future”. You simply cannot prove that without going there. What we’re seeing is not a natural course of actions, so we cannot simply derive the consequences like we would be able in science. Even in science, often times, the best we can do is probabilistic. The best we can do is show that such a future is possible, and that given the evidences, we may be able to conclude that the chances of realizing such a future is so and so, with caveats to known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

I’ll admit that chalking it up to defeatism is a stretch, but it’s not too far in my opinion. It’s the admission that the “machines” (though it’s really just big tech companies with a vested interest in as much data as possible so that they can sell it one way or another for profit) have already won and there’s not only no point in struggling against it, you get something out of it. I don’t necessarily agree with the gun analogy as I find it difficult to distinguish that from a threat of your life, but I see where you’re coming from: the easy path towards what most people current perceive as a modern life of tech is built in a way that pushes people into line as products, by enticing them with a “service” and taking advantage of their FOMO, and all other ways are either too much work or too technical for the common person.

When these services that people have come to rely on gets enshittified, these people would then just shrug and say “well what can you do,” maybe send some angry message somewhere into the aether and continue with the service, continuing to be a milk cow.

For myself, I see privacy as a tool towards encouraging a healthier variety in the ecosystem. It is a way to attain at least some healthy level of anonymity, as you would walking down streets in different parts of the world, so that I do not have to constantly maintain a single, outward personality everywhere I go. Supporting privacy is my way of saying I don’t like how many big tech business works, by essentially exploiting human nature and stepping all over it. That IS ideological; I simply believe that we can do good business without resorting to dirty tactics and opportunism; that humans should not be milk cows to business or capitalism.

That said, I have some vested interest in having more options: my interest and hobbies are niche and none of these services can or will sufficiently provide for what I seek. By the milk cow analogy, I do not sufficiently benefit from the blanket offers of these businesses. I also do not like the consequences of which they bring to humans and their relationships, and not fixing those consequences is out of a conflict of interest where they are motivated to exploit human nature and relationships to profiteer off us all, as is the many examples that we’re all starting to see and realize from capitalism.

Those three sound completely different to me, as far as how I’ve been pronouncing them goes. “Their” doesn’t have the extra lagging e sound (as in the e in err) in “there” where I curl my tongue upward at the end. “They’re” preserves the ey sound in “they”, just concatenated with an r as in err sound.

When I say, “They’re there,” people can make out what I’m saying, though as more people seem to tell me that these are just homophones, maybe they’ve just been relying on context.

True.

And they’ll follow that up with a somewhat snarky comment that “You’ll be eliminated by the machines first.”

There’s worse.

They already know everything about me anyways. If I can exchange my data for some free and easy to use service, I’m more than happy to give.

I hate defeatism.

I’m probably replying to a troll, but I will do so anyways for the sake of those who need to read this.

If we aren’t in any way bothered to see such narrow-minded reactions to a wrong being righted, then humankind is definitely headed for a few horrible decades ahead, filled with unnecessary strife and conflict out of pure indifference to each other’s backgrounds and current understanding of the world. And I’d even imagine it’d be worse than what we’re already seeing this decade. I suggest you go back and rethink what really matters as humans, instead of focusing on just some narrow definition of what a win is.

Wow, wtf is wrong with this comment section? People don’t realize how laws made in the past just stay around until someone steps up to change it? Or y’all don’t have the capacity to look at the world through a different mindset, even if you disagree with the mindset? As much as we all hope that people around the world are accepting, it doesn’t just happen, and you can’t just hope people who don’t understand your PoV will just realize something’s wrong waking up one day.

Either those, or y’all have either grown too cynical or are trying to be cynical just for the sake of it.

Can’t y’all just celebrate the fact that this is happening in Japan, an infamous nation that usually tries fervently to preserve their tradition and status quo?

Many of these meanings seem to be captured in some modern solutions already:

• We plan to provide a value, but memory for this value hasn’t been allocated yet.
• The memory has been allocated, but we haven’t attempted to compute/retrieve the proper value yet
• We are in the process of computing/retrieving the value

Futures?

• There was a code-level problem computing/retrieving the value

Exception? Result monads? (Okay, yea, we try to avoid the m word, but bear with me there)

• We successfully got the value, and the value is “the abstract concept of nothingness”

An Option or Maybe monad?

• or the value is “please use the default”
• or the value is “please try again”

An enumeration of return types would seem to solve this problem. I can picture doing this in Rust.

Doesn’t mean the defaults shouldn’t be sane

I swear, these bad EULA updates that basically force users to “accept the agreement, or we’ll brick your device” needs to fucking stop and be made illegal. The price that’s set for a product, especially a damn physical product, should include the acceptance of an existing EULA, and it should be honoured even when new ones come out and the user chooses to not accept the new agreement. You’ve basically never owned the product if companies can just pull the rug underneath you, and render your hardware useless. And you can’t foresee such changes too; a predatory company can acquire one that you’ve trusted and pull this shit. It’s borderline daylight larceny.

2 things I like about golang is just 1) the ease of getting someone to start work, and 2) goroutines. I have no complains about goroutines cause I’ve barely used it, and when I do it’s been fine. The first point though, I’d say the simplicity of the language is a double-edged sword — it’s easy to learn with little surface to cover, but it forces you to implement a lot of basic machinery you find in other languages by yourself, and so your codebase can get clunky to read really quickly, especially as your project grows.

Not trying to dissuade you from learning golang tho. I think it’s a good language to learn and use, especially for small simple programs, but it’s not the great language many try to say it is. It’s… fine. There are many reasons why it grinds my gears, but I’m still fine with using it and maintaining it for prod.

Ehhh, golang’s pretty down there for me too. Sure, you have types, but the way you “implement” an interface is the sussiest thing I’ve seen in most well-known programming languages. Not to mention all the foot guns (pointers for nullables is a common one, and oh, if you forgot that a function returns an error, and you called it for its effects, you’ve just built a possibly very silent bomb) you end up building into your programs. I use in prod, and I get scared.

When you have a large population with a strongman government, having little appetite for upheavals is likely impossible. Interacting with the Chinese, I’ve learned that their government is always actively monitoring online spaces to silence dissidents amongst their own people, such that their people are used to codify their languages, and switch whenever a code gets added to the list of words that would trigger the attention of authorities. Some years ago, it was something related to meditation (it was used as a code for their gatherings), and so the Buddhists had to change the word they use to avoid unnecessary trouble with the authorities. These don’t get mentioned very often in Western news sources.

It’s just the CCP imo. Most Chinese people I’ve met are just regular folks. Governments rarely represent their people culturally these days, if at all. Pretty odd when you think about it.

For those who’re interested: https://this-week-in-rust.org/