I think this is totally wrong. When you have both parties speaking multiple languages this happens all the time. You see this more with English being the loaner more often than it is the borrower, due to the reach that the language has. Listen to an Indian or Filipino speak for a while, it's interspersed with English words ALL the time. It happens less in English as there is not the universal knowledge base of one specific other language, but it does happen sometimes when searching for a certain, je ne sais pas.
US would lose out significantly if this were applied by everyone worldwide. The whole of Europe + Anglosphere have surrendered their whole tech related sectors to US companies, an enormous wealth transfer.
RCL (https://github.com/ruuda/rcl) pretty-prints its output by default. Pipe to `rcl e` to pretty-print RCL (which has slightly lighter key-value syntax, good if you only want to inspect it), while `rcl je` produces json output.
It doesn’t align tables like FracturedJson, but it does format values on a single line where possible. The pretty printer is based on the classic A Prettier Printer by Philip Wadler; the algorithm is quite elegant. Any value will be formatted wide if it fits the target width, otherwise tall.
Your introductory paragraph comes across very much like "people who want to change the status quo are political and people who want to maintain it are not"; which is clearly nonsense. "how things are is how they should be" is as much of an ideology, just a less conspicuous one given the existing norms.
>Is my choice to write some boiler plate code using gen AI truly political?
I am much closer to agreeing with your take here, but as you recognise, there are lots of political aspects to your actions, even if they are not conscious. Not intentionally being political doesn't mean you are not making political choices; there are many more that your AI choice touches upon; privacy issues, wealth distribution, centralisation, etc etc. Of course these choices become limited by practicalities but they still exist.
> Your introductory paragraph comes across very much like "people who want to change the status quo are political and people who want to maintain it are not"; which is clearly nonsense. "how things are is how they should be" is as much of an ideology, just a less conspicuous one given the existing norms.
With respect, I’m curious how you read all of that out of what they said...and whether it actually proves their remarks correct.
He's alluding to here that people who believe everything is political are more extremist in their views. Meaning, those who are moderate or more middle ground typically do not believe everything is political. It's implying that doing nothing or maintaining the status quo is inherently not a political action.
But of course, it is, and we have practically infinite historical examples to show that. The status quo does not exist on its own, it's a product of the dominant ideology, which is an ideology.
The hypocrisy is in touting that there is such a space, in order to gain points for freedom in international relations, then conveniently discard the pretense whenever it suits the authority.
reply