Communism is when made-up stats

The point is that there are beds that nobody are using while people are forced to sleep on the ground.

If you let a guy sleep on it, then you can’t sell it. Who would buy it? The bed isn’t “not being used”, it’s not being used as a bed.

It’s about resources not being used as efficiently as they could be

There’s nothing inefficient about this allocation of resources.

If anything this guy is a lot less in need of a bed than someone who hasn’t trained themselves to be able to sleep in a doorway (to wit, me.)

“Capitalism is when stores aren’t hotels”

Good luck

What would be an example where you need different logic based on a number’s parity? Why wouldn’t you write logic that ignores the number’s parity?

Part of getting better as a programmer is realizing which stuff doesn’t matter, and writing less code, as a result.

(however, I don’t get why more loops and ifs makes a function harder to test, I’m just going to trust you and that I’ll find out later.

Well, it’s fairly easy to explain - each branching statement in your function doubles the number of discrete paths through the code. If there’s one if statement, there’s two paths through the code. (The one where the if predicate is True, and the one where it isn’t.) If there’s two if statements, there’s four paths through the code. If there’s three if statements, there’s eight paths through the code.

In order to test a function completely, you have to test every possible path through the code. If you used three if statements, that means you have to devise and write eight tests just for the different code paths, plus testing various exceptional cases of the function’s input (“what if all inputs are 0”, “what if all inputs are null”, “what if the integer is a string”, etc.) That’s a lot of tests! You might even have to write tests for exceptional cases combined with different code paths, so now you’re writing eight times the number of tests you otherwise would have had to.

Whereas if your function doesn’t branch at all, there’s only one path through the code to have to test. That’s a lot fewer tests which means you’ll probably actually write them instead of saying “well, it looks like it works, I won’t spend the time on tests right now.” Which is how bugs make it all the way through to the end of the project.

You could just balance your checkbook, maybe

I think it just takes a not particularly reflective cynicism. “Banks actually steal from us” is just an edgelord “good things are actually bad” take.

Every time I’ve put money in a bank, I’ve gotten out more than I put in. Where’s the “robbery”?

I suspect “you’ll fail the test if you use break” is more of a joke by your teacher than an actual grading rubric, although if you used it more than twice in the same test I wouldn’t award you better than a B.

Is there a benefit to not using breaks or continues?

The benefit is that you learn to write non-branching code. That’s important for beginners, who tend to write very complicated and complex code with lots of branching, which they then discover they’re not able to test and debug. Barring you from using break and continue forces you to write more abstract code to achieve the same level of function with less complexity, and that’s how programmers advance in skill - simpler, more abstract code.

Ultimately it’s an effort to kick a crutch out from under you. Whether you think that’s appropriate for a teacher is up to you, I guess - I’m inclined to think it is, but many students don’t respond well to being challenged.

Yes in aggregate, that’s my point.

Yes, but you’re wrong. In aggregate political sophistication isn’t increasing. That’s my point.

You’re arguing against historical trends in radicalization despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

There are no “mountains of evidence to the contrary.”

I have observed it, and of course conservatives aren’t going to admit to shielding themselves with it openly

“Everybody who disagrees with me is lying” is a view that’s not particularly sophisticated.

If someone holds largely conservative views, but pretends to be moderate to avoid backlash, they are conservative.

Right, but who is even one person who is doing this?

People’s exposure is increasing over time

Individually, sure, but not in aggregate. That’s my point. You’re ignoring how there are always new people who have not yet become politically informed.

My point is that the conservative is feigning that they have liberal views as a way to justify conservative views, this is a common occurrence.

Right, but what I’m asking you is why you think that’s a “common occurrence” when you’ve neither observed it nor had it reported to you by conservatives.

The population is, as society develops and becomes increasingly social and interconnected, we are forced to become more aware simply through sheer osmosis.

I’m sure this is something you’re assuming to be true, but again it doesn’t work like this. I mean, sure, individual people get older at the rate of one year of age per year. But the age of the population doesn’t necessarily increase or decrease, unless there’s an imbalance in the rate of deaths and the rate of births.

A good example is when “centrists” were against BLM and supported ALM, they claimed they were centrists in order to shield themselves from even worse backlash.

This an example of exactly what I’m talking about, though. You’re talking about a person that has liberal-coded views on some issues and conservative-coded views on others (BLM/social unrest.)

This is increasingly disappearing. More people are getting more involved politically

Sure, but more people are born every day (and people die every day, too.) Individual people probably increase in political sophistication over time but that doesn’t mean the population does, at all.

Centrism, the idea of accepting both sides as valid and coming to a consensus, is typically a position held by conservatives that do not wish to out themselves as such in the company of liberals.

Has a single person who identifies as a “centrist” told you they feel that way? No? Then why are you so quick to believe it?

Russia is a shithole because it threw out all of its Jews. Too bad, they all moved to Brooklyn; our gain and your loss.

That’s not what a centrist is, lol. People tend to have similar stances on seemingly unrelated topics because the underlying knowledge and values required to coherently support one view can be applied to others.

Sure, that’s what you’d expect, reasonably - everybody you talk to is really online and politically informed, so their political views highly correlate.

But most people aren’t politically informed, so their political views don’t correlate. People in “the center” don’t hold the median view on every issue; they tend to hold an eclectic mix of right and left wing views. Against climate change and against abortion, etc.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod