HiddenLayer555

My university chose to teach a pure functional lisp-like language without for loops as they very first programming course in the computer science program lol. Everyone who "already knew" how to program in Python/Java/JS/etc hated it (including me at the time) because it knocked us from the peak of the Dunning-Kruger curve into the valley of despair like everyone else.

Took me years to understand the method to the madness and appreciate learning it.

I need something I can easily instruct them on how to install, and has good cross-platform support so that a basic programming lesson will work on whatever OS the attendees are running. Remember they are non-technical so may need more guidance on installation, so it should be something that is easy to explain.

Honestly, as much as I personally despise it as a language and as much as you probably shouldn't use it for large applications, JavaScript.

If ease of setup and platform compatibility are your absolute top priorities, nothing beats it. Every mainstream OS runs JavaScript, and it's already pre-installed in the form of a web browser. On any desktop system (and even mobile systems with some effort) you can use any text editor to write an HTML file with inline JavaScript and run it by just clicking it.

Python, the next best option IMO, still requires knowledge of how to use the command line, and on Windows, requires installation that is slightly more involved than installing a regular program (adding it to your PATH, etc). Python for beginners are also limited mostly to console apps, and making a GUI is much more difficult especially for new programmers. Again, you'd first have to teach them what a console even is and how it's actually still used by developers and is not a relic of the DOS days (something I've noticed non technical people tend to assume, they think GUIs made consoles obsolete). JS on the other hand is literally made to create GUIs on the web, meaning they will be able to create the kinds of software they're already used to interacting with, which is both easier for them to wrap their minds around and also more enticing. Someone with no technical experience might wrongly assume that a text only interface is like "training wheels" and what they're learning doesn't apply to "real" software.

More importantly, they will be able to show off what they built to their friends, without needing them to install anything or send source code or executables which can get blocked by social media filters. Services like Netlify will host your static pages for free, making sharing their work as simple as posting a link. Having a GUI is even more important in this regard, so they don't have to walk their friends through how to use a console app when they barely understand it themselves.

JS in the browser also has the benefit of being in a sandbox, meaning they can't easily interact with other parts of their computer like files or system configurations. This may seem like a disadvantage but for someone just learning what programming is, it's reassuring that they can't accidentally kill their OS or delete their files.

However, keep in mind that JS is pretty infamous for teaching bad habits that will have to be un-learned when switching to other programming languages (and so does Python TBH, though to a much lesser extent). It really depends on what kind of developers you want them to be by the end of this. For people just looking to casually make some interesting software they can show off to their friends, JS is probably the easiest way to do it. If this is meant to be the start of a path toward becoming actual professional developers, Yogthos's suggestion of Clojure or Scheme is probably better because those languages will teach much more rigorous programming and software design practices from day one.

Lol the vassal thinks they can make demands.

So you get all holier than thou about anti piracy and pro paying Netflix money under the guise of "financially supporting creators" yet dismiss any suggestion of how you can directly support creators as not worth your time and effort? Seems like you're more interested in feeling like you're supporting creators than going to the effort of actually doing so, but you do you I guess.

The most accurate part of Judy Hopps is her complete willingness to cover for, collaborate with, and use for her personal gain the literal fucking mafia.

At what point do we go back to creators hosting MP4 files that you can just buy from them directly? That would almost certainly be more financially viable for indie film makers and would certainly be a better user experience. I personally would gladly spend money on media I like over piracy if it goes to the actual creators and I get a regular file I can store myself and play as many times as I want.

You're almost never financially supporting the actual creators. AFAIK very few contracts in film/TV nowadays have ongoing royalties that are paid out per stream or download of the media. The writers, actors, film crew, editors, etc are paid a flat rate that's probably far less than what they deserve and the company itself gets the actual royalties. That's what "return on investment" is, the wages of the creators are losses that must be exceeded by the streaming revenue for a project to be considered successful. The actual creators are also denied any form of copyright for their work or the ability to extend the IP on their own, that's entirely controlled by the company, which is why you often see the actual creators being excited about fan creations around the work while the company itself tries to sue everyone. You're better off pirating the media and then directly giving money to the people who made it happen. You're literally better off watching YouTube videos with adblock off than watching Netflix if your goal is to support creators financially, at least YouTube still offers a small percentage of the ad revenue to creators.

Also, guarantee more of your subscription money is going toward AI research with the goal of replacing humans in media production than any of the actual people's wages.

The only protest that intentionally blocked emergency services I can think of was the antivaxxer "freedom convoy" protests.

But when you ask a random lib to think of a protest blocking emergency services they'll blurt out something about climate/workers/BLM/Palestine/etc. Talk about the freedom convoy and they'll get holier than thou about how unfairly those widdle science denwying fwascists got treated by the police when any Leftist protest ever was treated 100x worse.

I'm not a parent either so take this with a grain of salt, but these seem to be the most common complaints I've read from people with siblings.

Don't blindly accept "he did it/she did it" when one of them messes up. It shows them that, for one, their siblings are fall-persons that can be framed to avoid punishment, and potentially, that one of them is presumed the troublemaker if you're more inclined to blame them in the absense of evidence.

Also don't punish both for something unless you have proof they both did it. That's how you make them resent each other.

Give each of them autonomy from their siblings and allow them to do their own things by themselves. Don't force them to let their sibling tag along when they clearly don't want to, they deserve time to be their own person. Again, this fuels resentment as opposed to making them friends with each other, because forcing siblings to do everything together makes them think they're only half a person in your eyes.

Encourage sharing, but don't force them to share everything they own, especially if they're the ones that worked hard to obtain it. Obviously sharing is important and anything you buy for any of your kids should ideally be shared equally, but don't be the parent who watches their oldest kid save up for something they really want and the instant their younger siblings want it, pry it away from them in a misguided attempt to show the importance of sharing. Again, it makes them feel like half a person. Foster an environment where they feel comfortable sharing their stuff, and they'll do it by themselves. Forcing them to share only makes them see sharing as a burden and not a virtue. And when they do share and the younger sibling breaks it, don't dismiss it as "they don't know any better." Teach the younger sibling to respect other people's stuff that's being shared with them and to take responsibility and apologize when they break it.

Don't turn the older sibling into a full time babysitter for the younger ones. Occasionally having them babysit is fine, but if you're, for example, denying your teenager their social life by making them watch their siblings every single weekend while you go out with your friends, they're not going to like you or their siblings. You're the parent who should be making sacrifices for your kids, that's your responsibility and not something you should be imposing on your oldest kids.

Don't say things like "this is the good one" or "this is the rowdy one" to your friends within your kids' earshot, even in jest. Kids will internalize remarks like that from their parents and you will very likely manifest it just by saying it. Also don't twist one sibling's achievement into "why can't you be like that" for everyone else. The kid who achieved something will feel like nothing they do will get them your attention and their other siblings will resent the person they're being compared to.

how organized religion whose institutions had a great deal of power might get it into their heads to reshape their religion’s theology in order to say that one must follow that religion to be secure in the afterlife

That is a good point. I concede that. I've only experienced Christianity from mainstream denominations and I can see how that has biased me and poisoned my opinions of Jesus.

They need all that RAM because their models are bloated pieces of shit.

Please enlighten me on how the Christian idea that Jesus is the only way to heaven, the thing pretty much every Christian church preaches and was used to justify forced conversions of Indigenous peoples as part of the genocide against them, as well as the enslaving of Africans by Christian landowners, both using the "we're doing them a favour no matter how many atrocities we commit against then bevause we're still saving them from eternal damnation in hell" rethoric, is actually not Christian. Jesus didn't say the only way to "salvation" is through him? What does salvation mean if not avoiding hell then?