Nah, I just saw two people arguing in a group chat once and felt an immediate need to block the one that sent that image.

Honestly if you send this to someone you disagree with you just come across as the biggest tool ever.

Turn back now!

Brendan Eich founded Brave after being booted from Mozilla over his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Shame about the crypto bs and homophobia though.

It doesn’t help that there’s basically no documentation for how to use the Gecko engine either.

The engine is where like 95% of the complexity lies though. Maybe more.

In this case having more browser engines not under Google’s control is probably a good thing. Although this effort might’ve been better spent working on Servo.

You don’t really get the personal touch there though.

I think it’s most likely pressure from payment processors.

I know I’m being somewhat pedantic but range() returns an iterable range type, not a list, in python 3.

Make your own rules.

1. list.append returns None so what you’ve actually got is a list comprehension that generates a list containing the value None 19 times. (using functions with side effects, such as list.append, in list comprehensions are generally bad style so you should avoid this)
2. The list[...] syntax retrieves elements from the list, which is not what you’re trying to do here. (and it is actually invalid syntax in this case)
3. You should generally avoid calling lists list, because list is already a builtin.

If you want to append the numbers 1 to 19 to a list as you’re trying to do you can call the list.extend function with the list comprehension [value for value in range(1, 20)] as the argument. (Although in this case you can also just use the range directly.) To do it without list comprehensions you can simply loop over the range and repeatedly call the append function.

Thanks! I just won the game!

deleted by creator

It’s not a paper, it’s a stream-of-consciousness style blog post.

Ah yes, newsweek. Truly a paragon of human rights advocacy.

Pretty sure 5 is Artemis Fowl.

If you’re dead set on assigning a name to it I’d say they’re making an irrelevant conclusion, the basic facts are correct but they do not apply to the situation at hand.

No, you’re not basing your assumptions on how genuine someone is being, you’re basing your assumptions on your assumptions of how genuine they’re being.

Dismissing someone’s arguments by establishing they’re acting in bad faith is a valid rhetorical tactic but it doesn’t work if you can’t establish that. And labeling their argument as something it isn’t doesn’t help with that.

Addressing someone’s presumed ignorance is helpful because you’re also providing information for onlookers, pointing out the harmful effects of what someone’s saying (like potentially muddying the waters when it comes to recognizing dog whistles) is constructive, attacking anyone who may be acting in bad faith but could just as easily just be ignorant is just a waste of your energy.

I’m not particularly interested in defending the person you replied to, I don’t think they made a good case either. I just want people to be a bit more discerning with the terms they use. (And I have a compulsive need to correct people which I’m aware is really annoying.)