Rust dev, I enjoy reading and playing games, I also usually like to spend time with friends.

You can reach me on mastodon @sukhmel@mastodon.online or telegram @sukhmel@tg

  • 0 Posts
  • 143 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023
  • lad@programming.devtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Lost and foundEnglish
    11·
    1 month ago

    saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument

    Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.

    Although, in case you’re talking about, the indigenous people’s artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame

  • lad@programming.devtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Lost and foundEnglish
    51·
    1 month ago

    This is reasonable, but what if the culture that created the artifacts already went extinct like Maya? Besides, we’re not only talking about how it shouldn’t have been done in the past, but also about what to do today with that past.

    It’s easy to say that everything bad of today is only because of wrongdoings of yesterday, but it is not useful and usually is only used as propaganda for something that has no justification except for the past being bad.

    Edit: although, now that I think about it, coming from this viewpoint, that past is past and we should care about present, it’s clear that you’re right. If the culture bearer (or the inheritor, but this is grey zone for me) wants to destroy what is rightfully theirs, so be it. There is a bit of an issue with making those decisions by all eligible people, not a couple of extremists, though. Well, I think I found the contradiction that I had in me

  • lad@programming.devtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Lost and foundEnglish
    4·
    1 month ago

    As far, as I know, there are many cases of not returning on the ground of owners not having conditions to preserve.

    But thanks for replying at least, I was hoping to see opposing opinions to try to understand what am I missing, not just ‘stealing bad’ downvotes

  • lad@programming.devtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Lost and foundEnglish
    43·
    1 month ago

    This is a conundrum I can’t wrap my head around. One (country, usually) can have something of cultural significance, and decide what to do with that. They can make it a museum, make it generally available, forbid access at all, and even destroy it completely (e.g. see Palmyra under ISIS).

    If the object in question is not protected by UNESCO (and really, even if it is) no one has a say in that. The only remotely correct argument that can be made is that destroying historical artifacts makes it hard or impossible to study history, but one can argue that we don’t need to study history, it’s not like this is an imperative. Another argument may be that things do not belong to those who have it, but instead to their people as inheritors of people who lived long ago, but I don’t think that also helps.

    And so, on one hand, I am for preserving artifacts and not destroying those, on the other hand, I don’t quite see what moral ground is there for it.

  • lad@programming.devtoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.ml•Off by one solitudeEnglish
    6·
    2 months ago

    There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”

    This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.

    You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.

    Edit: spelling

    Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least