kryptonianCodeMonkey

C is unforgiving and... let's call it "quirky" with anything that resembles UI. It's just not built for it. C sits just above Assembly in low level code, and it has many pitfalls in that regard.

It's not that it's not valuable to learn, because it is. But learning C is more about learning about the backend of how programming languages work (pointers, heaps/stacks, memory allocation and cleanup, etc.) and the specific quirks and dangers of C itself than it is about teaching you good programming skills.

Modern programming isn't about guarding against overflow, managing memory, or dealing with pointers and memory manipulation. Having a deep understanding of those things will do very little for your actual programming skills. It's far more important to understand data structures and algorithms, and having some exposure to different paradigms is a good idea too.

Python is an easy entry point, and frankly, many have made their careers off of python alone. It is often slow at scale and has its own quirks, good and bad, but it's far easier to focus on the logic than the quirks with Python than compared to C. It has built in tools for basically any paradigm, though it is built primarily for object oriented and procedural, but has some nice declarative tools like list comprehensions too. Java is also a common language in the industry and gives you more exposure to Object Oriented Programming. Try out Haskell for pure functional and prolog for logic/declarative. C lacks all of those things.

Good for you. Lets hope your standards for conduct that actually matters for their job are as high.

Your view is that him getting shit faced drunk and all damages and injuries that occur should be covered by the public.

What damages? What injuries? What the hell are you talking about? If there were any, then of course those would be his responsibility. I saw no mention of anyone being hurt by him at all though.

We aren't his servants.

No shit? Who said otherwise?

If you want to do whatever you want, dont do it on the property where we will held liable.

Again, what are you talking about? Held liable for what?

Also I agree it shouldn't matter who you fuck, but if it's a journalist/reporter, all subject matter pertaining to your position is now null and void.

I'm really not sure what you mean by "subject matter pertaining to your position" or "null and void". Those words don't seem to mean anything at all in this context. But if your concern is that an elected official is having sex with a journalist, there's literally nothing wrong with that so long as it's not coercive (like to get/stop a story, for example). Elected officials are allowed to fuck and even marry journalists, my guy.

It's like fucking the health inspector, someone else needs to be doing the inspection then.

You're suggesting that this creates a conflict of interest, and it very well may. But that conflict is the journalist's who writes the stories, not the official's who is the subject of them. So I still don't see how this matters for his job at all.

If you care more about this dude having sex in his off hours at an inappropriate location than literally any other detail of his performance as an elected official, then you're as ridiculous as that guy, yes. Actually you're probably way more ridiculous because they are at least one of his constituents, and I'm guessing you are not. If that is the case, you need to majorly sort out your priorities. This purity test shit, is nonsense.

Well that's a stupid take too. I do my job and my employer pays me. That money is now mine. What I do with that money within the bonds of the law is no one's fucking business. That goes for elected officials too. I don't care if the an official spends every spare dime of his money getting drunk on nights and weekends if he's still competently doing his job. Idk if he is competently doing his job, but I don't think this necessarily indicates that he's not either. And if getting drunk once is enough to indicate someone shouldn't hold office, that's bad news for nearly every American politician.

If the line is drawn at the door of any goverment building especially one that's isn't currently open and doing business, that's strange too. They're not hollowed ground or holy sites. They're administrative buildings. People working there are people. They piss and shit in those buildings. They microwave fish. They spread their shitty fucking colds. If the very idea that someone may have had consenting sex in one of the rooms disturbs you, I would suggest you not go into any building ever. Someone has almost certainly been fucking there at some point.

That's not what I said. If the city council wants to fire him, I'm sure that's in their power. But for some random dude they interviewed to feel like this guy needs to be taken down, it's ridiculous.

Ah I didn't see that part. That does move beyond lying to cover up embarrassing sexual event to destruction of public property.

Literally the kind of bullshit that Sony mocked Xbox for trying with the Xbox One when it and the PS4 came out. When legitimate concerns were brought up that some gamers were not able to connect their device to the internet regularly, for instance if they are in the military deployed overseas or on ships and play games on their downtime, or if they simply lose service for some time for financial issues, or if they have metered connections that they depend on for work, etc. they were told to just buy an older Xbox. Sony gave them hell in interviews after that. Here we are 13 years later, and Sony is busy retroactively doing that dame shit. Smh

So let's just assume his excuse is false and he was actually there having sex with the journalist. Let's be honest, he almost certainly was. If you lose respect for the guy over the act or the lying to excuse it and don't want to vote for him to represent you, I get that. If you're his wife and want a divorce, absolutely. If you're his child or family and embarrassed by his behavior and don't want to be around him, fine.

Short of that, like... who gives a shit? "He's got to pay" "It's an insult to the city." Really? Because he had casual sex with another consenting adult that isn't his subordinate? Because he did that in a (closed) government building? Why does that matter? Why does that need to be punished? Why does he need to lose his career over it? Of all of the less than righteous things someone in a leadership position could do with their power, the thing I care the absolute least about is consenting adult sex in a government building after hours. Hell I'm not even an adventurous person and I've had sex parked in a dark parking lot and in a closed store. Should I "have to pay" for those dalliances, and lose my career over it?

No I'm telling you that if you're rooted to the ground close enough to a similarly rooted neighbors and the wind makes both of your arms wiggle hard enough, you might lose a finger. People can accommodate neighbors, move freely, and shelter from the winds.

Wind blows, trees' branches rub together and snap off twigs growing at the ends, creating gaps. They grow again, next windy day, they break again.

Let the ass kissing and subsequent presidential pardoning begin