Python sure has changed since I last used it.

Flipping H E double hockeysticks! You aren’t supposed to use such fucking swearwords here!

Could have just used propper capitalization of the acronym. Would have been equally clear.

The thing is, what use case can benefit from a blockchain?

Scamming, gambling, crime and speculation benefited from the lack of regulation, but barely cared about the underlying concept of a bitcoin.

But for anything real, much better solutions have existed for decades or centuries.

Blockchain is a solution without a problem and has been that for 25 years now.

If you have a solution that hasn’t found a problem in 25 years, chances are that there will never be an actual problem that solution would solve.

So the killer apps of blockchain remain scamming, gambling, speculation and crime. Until there are more stringent regulations, then they’ll go back to Western Union and Paysafe cards.

Easy, add a lowercase s after the acronym: GUIs.

Apostrophes are only used if the acronym ends with s: SAS’s or alternatively SAS’, both are possible.

Gui’s? What letter does the apostrophe replace? Did you mean to say “gui is”?

So “gui is are for idiots”?

Maybe the idiot is the one who doesn’t know how apostrophes work?

I totally know that feeling :)

Well, in the 90s, XML was the future. Luckily, not a lot of this future remains.

Just imagine what HTML would be like if JSON had been available back then.

Yes, there is: https://github.com/takari/polyglot-maven

I am just not sure if that’s much better. Maven is just a huge pain in the rear.

Sadly, it was done manually. I had to migrate it to this brand new bleeding edge technology, Apache Velocity. That’s not great either, but it’s much less terrible than XSLT.

For that task I had to learn two templating languages at the same time to port it from one to the other. Wasn’t an easy task.

I recently had to work with XSLT (may it’s inventor burn in hell for their crimes).

That’s pretty much programming in XML. It’s probably the worst possible thing.

That makes sense what you are saying. The real question is how the majority of the population sees the issue.

Take for example smoking bans in restaurants and public buildings. In my county this was something the politicians didn’t want to do for a very long time because they feared the backlash of the smokers. But after a very successful public petition for enacting a smoking ban they did some surveys and found out that almost 70% of the population was for such a ban.

They then enacted the ban and all the smokers where like “The restaurants are all going to die”. Then the ban came and it was just business as usual. Nothing bad happened and actually, revenue increased because more non-smokers came to the restaurants.

I don’t have statistics on how many people would want stronger regulation of dogs, and that value might vary a lot between places. Depending on the circumstances (e.g. if it happens after a particularly gruesome dog attack) stuff like that might not even need too much political capital.

For example, after a pitbull killed a toddler who was just walking down the road, the city where I live enacted compulsory leashes in all public places. There was no shitstorm against it.

You can have a department for something like that. But it doesn’t have to be funded by the tax payer. That’s what license fees are there for. Works great for cars already (at least where I am from).

But seriosly, “but regulation costs money” is a pretty weak argument, because everything costs money.

Social services don’t pay for your dog’s vet. Why should it pay for other dog expenses?

Regarding gun control, I luckily live in a country with decent gun control laws. So our death rate due to gun violence in peace time doesn’t resemble the civilian casulty rate in some war zones.

The issue is that for every good dog owner who trains their dog, puts it on a leash in public, picks up the dog shit and makes sure their dog can’t cause trouble, there is also some idiot who got a dog on a whim, mistreats it and doesn’t train it at all.

And most often the people who don’t care for training their dog are also the people who don’t care to secure the dog in public places.

I know that’s a generalisation and there probably are some counter examples. But a “don’t care” attitude generally runs through everything a person does.

And having a dog is a multiplier of what trouble that “don’t care” attitude can cause.

That’s why I am for licensing/inspections. For someone who does care it probably won’t change much. They already go to a training course with their dog. Just give them a license for completing the training/make that training mandatory if you don’t want to call it a license.

Any reasonable dog owner will be at vet in regular intervals anyway. Just let the vet not only check whether the dog is physically fit, but also if it obeys it’s owner and if it shows signs of abuse. And make that checkup mandatory. It’s better for the dogs anyway if they get their health checked regularly.

I see why you think it’s not necessary, because you might be the kind of dog owner who cares and then it’s just additional hassle. But, as I said, there are many who don’t care, even if in your bubble (and I don’t mean this word negatively) everyone cares for their dogs.

Another issue that should be taken care of. But have you tried getting an aircraft license?

Total agreement.

Come to think about that: to operate a car, motorcycle, boat or aeroplane you need to get a license, proving that you know what you are doing. Depending on vehicle and jurisdiction, you might even need to re-take tests frequently. All of these vehicles (in most jurisdictions) require frequent inspections and if they fail these inspections, you are no longer allowed to operate them.

Also, there are very stringent laws on how you are allowed to operate these vehicles, with really harsh fines for violations of these laws.

Looks like your stance on dog ownership is much more hardcore than mine, but I could get behind that.

I was attacked multiple times by dogs and I don’t care what race they are. All dogs in public should be on a leash and muzzled.

And every time I was attacked I was just walking down the road and some random dog without leash or muzzle just attacked and bit me. And every time the owner was like “The dog has never done anything like that”. That totally makes everything better. I always felt so honored that I was the first one that dog hurt. I still got scars on my shoulder from that one time and that was almost 20 years ago.

I don’t think breed-based laws are a good idea, because they make it look like every other breed is not dangerous.

I think, all dogs should be leashed and muzzled in public and all owners should have to get a license that includes a test and yearly inspections first.

deleted by creator

Putting a dog on a leash and muzzle it is how I’d treat a mennace. So I think we are mostly in agreement ;)