It had previously been held as a competition between nations and with some level of integrity. This Oracle campaign and the previous Alinghi campaign have been the most self-serving in the America's Cup 150 years of history.
Money has been a part of the cup, sure, but making it so you can't win without dropping half a billion is a new low.
I'm not sure that's true - didn't some previous incumbents tweak the rules to require challengers to sail their boats on the open ocean from their home clubs, while the Rhode Island based boats could be built much lighter since they didn't need to be trans-ocean-capable?
I think this particular race has a century-long history of being all about the defender writing their own rulebook…
So, does your desire to hurt people who do bad things mean that you will accept a 70% rate of re-offending, or would you trade your desire for revenge for a 15% rate of re-offending?
That is the question you really need to answer.
Is it better to stop future offending or feel good about inflicting suffering on others who are "bad" right now?
You might also want to throw into the mix the observation that a very large number of people in prison have untreated mental / behavioral issues and that a very large number of people who commit violent or sexual crimes have themselves been victims of such crimes in their formative years.
My argument is that whatever your ethics are, treating people like animals creates more animals. We all pay the cost of that.
> your desire to hurt people who do bad things> ...feel good about inflicting suffering> ...your desire for revenge
Again, you attack me personally, this is not a good look for you. I wish harm on nobody; I long for a utopian day of mutual respect.
> You might also want to throw into the mix the observation that a very large number of people in prison have untreated mental / behavioral issues
I have already directly raised this point. You are changing the frame.
> [will] you [...] accept a 70% rate of re-offending, or would you trade your desire for revenge for a 15% rate of re-offending? That is the question you really need to answer.
I will boldly answer your question, though you have answered none of mine. Yes, I will accept a higher rate of re-offending. Ethics are not convenient, and are often not utilitarian. I would not kill one person to save ten, nor even a thousand. If holding an individual to account for their actions has a high cost, then so be it.
"Truly ethical behavior is acting according to principles even when those principles are inconvenient."
Awesome idea! I wish you the very best of success. Turning what can be an alienating technology into a means to reach out to people in need is really heartwarming.
No, the OP was correct - other languages have flaws but nowhere near the level of Javascript. You pick on C++ which is a design by committee monstrosity but it is nowhere near as braindead as Javascript. I mean, C++ allows you to include other code! C++ doesn't allow you to redefine the constants of the language. Actually, C++ has constants!
Nope, as much as I like to rail against the sins of C++, it is a paragon of design virtue next to JS. I've been programming for three decades now and JS is the worst language I have ever seen. I use JS a lot in my day job and it has parts I really like (object constants, for example) but really, as a piece of language design it is really the pits.
That's not really a C++ construct, as much as it is a hold-over from C, kept around to retain compatibility with existing code.
If you're writing new C++ code, you're in no way forced to use it. You can use constants or inline functions to achieve the same result in almost all cases.
