Source: Facebook

  • REACT(VIRTUAL DOM) ISN’T A LANGUAGE OR A PATTERN, IT’S A DATABASE OF EVAL STRING

    REACT(VIRTUAL DOM) ISN’T A LANGUAGE OR A PATTERN, IT’S A DATABASE OF EVAL STRINGS.

    In other words, architecturally it’s a game engine.

    At its heart, Oversing is also a game engine. And I have written games on and off for forty years.

    So that’s why i recognize the pattern and find so much wrong with it. React is a poorly designed game engine with shitty syntax trying to masquerade as a programming language. All it requires is a set of tables with values (json objects)

    Renderer (heartbeat)

    Nouns(objects)

    States

    Procedures (transformations)

    Verbs(actions)

    I don’t need another problem to solve.

    But the industry needs this problems solved.

    OK. Now at least I don’t have to be pissed off. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-19 10:23:00 UTC

  • MY ANCESTORS WERE NOT IMMIGRANTS THEY WERE CONQUERORS

    MY ANCESTORS WERE NOT IMMIGRANTS THEY WERE CONQUERORS


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-19 10:12:00 UTC

  • by Joel Davis ( NOTE: Joel Davis: I’ve done some light editing below, and used C

    by Joel Davis

    ( NOTE: Joel Davis: I’ve done some light editing below, and used CD: to add my thoughts. This is a very good piece with a full cycle argument. And you only ‘slide backward’ into godmode speech rather than operational language a few times -I’ve left them for you to edit. If you do, and repost as a comment, I’ll update this. ok? 🙂 )

    —“Fundamentally, force functions as the means of decidability in all property disputes.

    However, by the forcible establishment of sovereignty, the sovereign may enforce whichever specific definition of property it decides (within the limits of existential possibility and practical capability).

    [(CD: platonism. state actors an actions:)Sovereign power manifests] property in society using force, and Propertarianism acknowledges this and seeks to argue in favour of a particular conception of property for the purposes of satisfying mutual strategic self-interest that produces to persistence: genetic survival: “Biological Transcendence”.

    Genetic Survival (Biological Transcendence) [(CD: godmode language:) has been identified] as the fundamental purpose for life from the analysis of evolutionary biological, psychological and neuroscientific observations.

    These observations demonstrate that by successful genetic reproduction we exist in the form that we exist, including our fundamental psychological motivations.

    By examining our fundamental psychological motivations as a function of the operation of genetic survival, we may establish genetic survival as the most probable psychologically and existentially satisfying intended consequence for our actions. (CD: and furthremore, one would have to explain why anyone’s choice was not in pursuit of that end – because that exposes deceptions and frauds.)

    We observe humans (like all animals) to pursue genetic survival by three fundamental categories of strategy:

    – Predation

    – Parasitism

    – Cooperation

    (CD: – Avoidance )

    These three(CD: four) categories correlate with the three fundamental catagories of social power we observe:

    – Violence

    – Appeal to Conscience

    – Capacity for Exchange

    – Boycott

    Predators use violence to gain social power to gain access to resources and reproduction to gain increased probability of genetic survival.

    Parasites use appeals to conscience (internalized morality) to gain social power to gain access to resources and reproduction to gain increased probability of genetic survival.

    Cooperators exchange their beneficial capacity for the production of consumable resources and reproduction itself to gain social power to gain access to resources and reproduction to gain increased probability of genetic survival.

    (CD: Avoidance … )

    We have identified the strategy of cooperation’s higher capacity to serve our interests for long-term genetic survival as it provides extremely higher incentives to contribute to society.

    Through the establishment of a cooperative society, we incentivize the production of necessary resources for survival and protections for our inherent vulnerablities, and we empower individual humans to exchange their productive capacity for access to these protections and resources.

    In light of this, we seek to increase the individual’s incentive to serve his/her genetic survival interests by exchange and disincentivize violence or parasitism.

    In order to defeat all predators and parasites and enforce cooperation by exchange we must establish sovereign force which defends [(CD: no, all property that encourages retaliation by a return to parasitism and predation)physical] property (to protect the incentive to labour/invest/produce and exchange) and abstract property (by punishing false testimony to protect the listeners from having their conscience manipulated to enable parasitism – All parasitism by definition directly contradicts the self-interest of the host.

    Therefore, all justifications for parasitism require an appeal to elevate some abstract ideal as more fundamentally important than self-interest, yet we observe the emergence of our fundamental psychological motivations [CD: from which our self-interest emerges] from the operation of genetic survival. Therefore, the fact these abstract moral imperatives serve the genetic survival interests of parasites demonstrates the deception of all justifications for parasitism.)

    For Propertarianism to succeed in maximizing our probability for genetic survival, the sovereign must punish predatory violence and parasitic lying so to engage in either behaviour would reduce your probability of genetic survival more than engaging in such behaviour could increase it, thus incentivizing Cooperation.

    Propertarian Sovereign Power achieves this through violence, but it defines property as means to it’s cooperative genetic survival strategy.

    To enforce property creates it, why you enforce property defines it.

    I would add that whilst Predation functions by Violence, all Violence need not function as Predation. And whilst all Social Parasitism functions by Appeals to Conscience, not all Appeals to Conscience must function as Parasitism.

    Via Propertarianism, all three categories of social power may function as means to Cooperation.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-19 08:27:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: “Curt, are you a white nationalist?” Well, 1) I’m a non-individualist,

    QUESTION: “Curt, are you a white nationalist?”

    Well,

    1) I’m a non-individualist, non corporatist, non-statist, non-universalist. Meaning that i’m against temporal(short term) asset holders without territorial, monumental, institutional, cultural, and kinship interest.

    And

    2) I’m a family-ist, tribalist, monarchist, nationalist, civilization-ist.

    Meaning that i’m in favor of inter-temporal(long term term) asset holders with territorial, monumental, institutional, cultural, and kinship interest.

    And moreover:

    3) I’m in favor of homogeneity in order to limit transaction costs, increase the utility of normative signals, increase the trust in the economy, and increase redistribution interests.

    And

    4) I object to moving people to capital even WITHIN polities, rather than moving capital to people. And moreover, I object to moving people between polities unless they are highly skilled or highly educated, and they do not come with families. object to ALL middle, working, and lower class migration. because these people are more dependent upon similar ideas than are those at the top of the socio economic pyramid – who are almost independent of demands on others of the same culture to function. (this subject needs a lot of detail and i don’t feel like writing it right now, but basically normative, cultural, and genetic costs are high.

    And

    5) the evidence is that a large number of small states are best able to domesticate and adapt, and improve their people. And if we have many small states then we can have varieties of states.

    And

    6) the natural consequence of rule of natural law will produce these outcomes.

    Now, would I prefer a state overwhelmingly populated by my kin. Of course I would. I grew up that way and I have tried the variety of options and I like living among my tribe. And I prefer to do so without competition from other tribes.

    Do I want to be able to visit other tribes? Absolutely. Do I want to live among them? Not particularly.

    But what I want doesn’t mater. What matters is that we have the ability to choose to live in small homogenous in relative equalitarian polities, or in large heterogeneous relative castes as we choose.

    Let a thousand nations bloom.

    POSTS

    What Do You Consider Yourself?

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/10/04/what-do-you-consider-yourself/

    I’m In This Fight For Humanity

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/06/im-in-this-fight-for-all-of-humanity/

    The Old Right vs The New Right

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/09/17/the-old-right-vs-the-new-right/


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 20:56:00 UTC

  • Francisco Antonio: –“QUESTION: How does mysticism compare with pseudo-science?”

    Francisco Antonio: –“QUESTION: How does mysticism compare with pseudo-science?”–

    Example

    1) Mysticism: Supernatural existence,lack of deducibility from testable experience, lack of correspondence, lack of evidence, with anthropomorphic intention, cognitive bias to justify, argument corresponds to previous types of human error. (ex: intentional design) ASSERTION: arbitrary introduction of INTENT

    2) Supernatural existence, lack of deducibility from testable experience, lack of correspondence, lack of evidence, without anthropomorphic intention, cognitive bias to justify, argument corresponds to previous types of human error. (ex: multiple worlds) ASSERTION: arbitrary introduction of EXISTENCE.

    3) the hard one is pseudorationalism, but it basically means artificial insertion of information between the premise and the conclusion. Some people mentioned Kant and Hegel today (kant’s dependence upon the excluded middle is an example).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 18:48:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: What’s the difference between “no shoes no shirt, no service” in a pri

    QUESTION: What’s the difference between “no shoes no shirt, no service” in a private space vs in a public space?

    (hints: 1-contractual commons. 2-via negativa. 3-trades)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 18:26:00 UTC

  • MY UNWANTED OPINION ON RIGHT BEHAVIOR AFTER THE TRS DOXX 1) Use your real name.

    MY UNWANTED OPINION ON RIGHT BEHAVIOR AFTER THE TRS DOXX

    1) Use your real name. Man up.

    2) If you wouldn’t say it under your real name, then don’t say it. This prevents you from saying stupid shit and forces you to say smart shit instead. Also, it means stupid people will say a lot less shit, and smart people will say more stuff that isn’t shit.

    3) Ridicule is fun but it’s larping. Arguments make a difference. The rest is community building. We won the last war. Time to win the next one: OBTAIN POWER.

    4) I might be an arrogant f–ck, but honestly Mike is one of the only people in the movement with sufficient IQ for me to have an adult conversation with on relatively equal terms. So, enough said. That’s my criteria. We aren’t going take and hold power with meme’s cartoon frogs and ridicule. Fight the next war.

    5) Natural Law will drive out the bad of any group and pull in the good of any group. And as long as the remaining differences are not reproductively visible enough to cause the creation of a sub-group, then for all intents and purposes we are genetically close enough.

    WHY? BECAUSE THE ORIGIN OF WESTERN DIFFERENCE IS:

    (a) Sovereignty/Heroism, (b) dispute resolution between sovereign men by means of natural law, and an independent (intolerant) judiciary, (c) objective (scientific) testimony, jury, thang, and senate with a monarch (ultimate judge) chosen from the best. (d) profiting by ruling and taxing the underclasses. Meaning freemen, freemen-in-training (soldiers), serfs (partly freemen), slaves (underclasses), and undomesticated animals (everyone not subject to the process of our domestication). We merely handed out the permissions of liberty, freedom, and subsidy to the rest of the human race because employees are cheaper and more profitable than the rest. Meaning we can research and buy more and better weapons and train more soldiers than competitors – and continue to profit from our rule.

    So that’s what makes us compatible: behavior and insufficient visual difference to form a subgroup.

    All we need is natural law with which to prosecute those who violate it, and the will to prosecute them viscously and with pride and joy.

    The enlightenment was a lie. There is no free ride. Violence is unsubstitutable. Only you can provide it. So we all fight for our peoples (world wide) or we are all exterminated and blended into a worldwide caste system leaving most of our people gone or at the bottom. It’s that simple.

    So quit bitching, pussies.

    Fight. Defeat. Rule. Profit. Domesticate.

    And revel in it.

    Curt Doolittle

    (The jews we can integrate our ours. We paid heavily for them. Their problem is cultural. Yeah, there is a genetic thing there. But that can be bred out of the ones who are willing. Their problem is cultural. Our problem is our failure to domesticate because the puritans were just as bad as the jews. So, as a descendent of Puritans, I just look in the f–king mirror for whose families are to blame: mine (ours) .)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 17:44:00 UTC

  • ADD A DIFFERENCE IN AGENCY AND COST TO THE GENDERS The whole (a) Agency ( Left-l

    ADD A DIFFERENCE IN AGENCY AND COST TO THE GENDERS

    The whole (a) Agency ( Left-lacks-agency vs Right-has-agency) concept provides just as much explanatory power as (b) the solipsism vs autism, (c) the intertemporal division of reproductive perception, cognition and labor, (d) the competing but compatible differences in reproductive costs, and (c) R/K (herd/pack) selection analogy.

    But all those statements fall prey to our metaphysical acceptance of some sort of equality, when instead, the consequences of this effect are similar to the evidence of differences in investment strategy: women invest more conservatively (they take less risk) and men more aggressively. So women tend to do better, especially when they work in groups (investment clubs).

    But this is to ignore causality: only men would create a stock market (risk market) containing a sub-market of low risk stocks. Otherwise we would only have investment, bond, and banking industries but no stock market. The stock market functions on speculation and risk calculation. The externality produced by that market is a set of lower risk stocks that those with lower risk tolerance can profit from.

    We see the same thing in claims that women are more civilized. But this is nonsense. Men create civilization by absorbing the majority of stress, damage, and risk.

    Men must defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance. Women must just make use of what ‘gets through our shield-wall’.

    So while women bear higher reproductive production costs. Men bear higher defense, management, and research and development costs.

    And the evidence is that the man’s cost is higher…..

    Civilization is not so much in our interest as it is in our mother’s sisters, wives, and daughter’s. Otherwise. hunting other humans is higher risk but greater enjoyment – and often greater reward.

    Assuming that research and development was invested in weaponry, mobility, fitness, cooperation, and skill.

    Full accounting means never taking any assumptions about natural order for granted.

    Man is a rational creature who chooses rational ends. That is all.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 17:00:00 UTC

  • STUFF) (updated) Ok, I am pretty deep in this nouveau-javascript stack now, and

    http://caniuse.com/#feat=shadowdomv1(TECHIE STUFF)

    (updated)

    Ok, I am pretty deep in this nouveau-javascript stack now, and you know, I’ve been writing software since … like 1974? And i’ve gone through every generation of hardware and software. And while the DOM is a certainly bad architecture for rendering applications. And while rendering only differences between the DOM and the virtual Dom is an interesting solution. And while ‘the kids’ are coming out with new ‘solutions’ every day now. This is all really just a lot of hacking to get around a pretty simple problem that should be built into the browser, and have nothing to do with software: the continuously updated DOM is a shitty design for the current state of the internet, and there is no reason that the same work being done today by hand is not built into the browser engine.

    I’ve look at literally hundreds of applications over the past few months, and I’ve gone through all the application architectures (what is now called more correctly ‘patterns’), and this has got to be the least maintainable generation of software I have seen in my lifetime … other than the PREVIOUS generation of hacks to make the browser do what it hasn’t in the past.

    So the better question is, why can’t browser engines do the diff and only update the necessary DOM elements? Why can’t we create ‘stores’ in the damned DOM?

    I just don’t understand why a developer’s job isn’t limited to creating components, collecting events and issuing state changes. It’s not like this is rocket science.

    “Props”? And you thought softly typed languages were a problem?

    A module with type declarations outside the class? Oh… and you know why we spend so much time writing tests? Because instead of 90% of our work being pointer and memory maintenance in the past, (a failure of operating systems to invent an adequate means of garbage collection – ie: microsoft dot net) we’re compensating for a failure of a language interpreter (in the browser) to compensate for all the natural fuck ups humans make when doing this kind of nonsense. omg. this is insane.

    And yes, I like writing object oriented code (c++ etc) or functional code (pascal), because its freaking MAINTAINABLE. I am not sure what this is supposed to be called, but making up a new name for ‘shitty disorganized code that compensates for a shitty data model (the DOM) and it’s operating system (the browser) is the OPPOSITE of what the free software movement should have brought us: a conflict of priorities and no jury (management team) to demand changes.

    argh…

    Vent off.

    lol

    UPDATE:

    1 – it’s in current versions of chrome and opera. Scheduled for the rest.

    http://caniuse.com/#feat=shadowdomv1

    2 – it’s weak but it’s progress. 🙂

    https://www.w3.org/TR/shadow-dom/


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:57:00 UTC

  • The ‘discussion’ liberty needs is the ‘reconciliation’ between Hoppe and I. In n

    The ‘discussion’ liberty needs is the ‘reconciliation’ between Hoppe and I. In no small part because he is the only person with the requisite knowledge to hold such a discussion. I have been a bit of an ass (more than a bit of an ass) because I was so angry with the deception of the cosmopolitans that I let it influence me. But my view is that it would be better for his movement to have an evolution with my restatement in scientific language, than an extinction with his death. I would also radically improve the quality of his ‘Salon’.

    I would crucify anyone from the mises institute. No way will they touch me. No one there both intellectually capable and intellectually honest other than Hoppe.

    Molyneux has converted from wanna-be-philosohper, to the best critic of common ideas that is working today. And so I would like to help him ‘evolve’ from hopeful ‘liberty’ to acceptance ‘sovereignty’.

    Cantwell’s Interesting because his sentiments appear pretty good.

    I like Watson but I’m not big on critique, and that’s his schtick.

    The think tanks are all burned other than Heritage. And even heritage still practitioners of the ‘hopeful’ folly. I don’t see heritage talking to me any time soon.

    My view (and why we need the propertarian institute) is to create a new think tank that isn’t a media outlet, but that literally TRAINS prosecutors (think jesuits / inquisition / templars ).

    I thought I had this worked out economically but I’ve got more work to do now. We can do it. And when we do that’s the thing. Training is worth paying for (albeit small amounts) and we do not need to beg for donations, only try to build an endowment.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:35:00 UTC