So since some of the Greek fighters - meaning those who allied with the British against the Nazis, had communist ideals you assume that all they wanted was a violent take over and establishing communism. And based on that assumption you justify the British for (a) arming Nazi collaborators and (b) opening fire against civilians in a peaceful demonstration.
The communist party participated in the Greek government after Greece was liberated. The reason they quit? They disagreed with the disarmament of their military wing.
Another thing that deserves mention is that the civil war actually started years before the Nazis left. The communists had been attacking not only the Nazis, but also right-wing resistance groups (EDES, PAO, EKKA)! The Brits actually brokered a ceasefire in early 1944, which the communists broke 2 months later by murdering resistance leader Psarros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrios_Psarros).
There is no assuming involved; they didn't simply "want" a violent take over, they actually tried to do it and lost.
I think you are oversimplifying the events. I'm not suggesting there was nothing wrong with EAM. However, the article is about the British involvement that lead to the December '44 events. They freed and armed the Greeks who collaborated with the Nazi regime and they disarmed (or tried to disarm) only ELAS members. Of course Greek citizens would protest against that. And it was policemen armed by the British who opened fire against a peaceful crowd. I really can't see how you can justify this.
>They freed and armed the Greeks who collaborated with the Nazi regime
This is not really the case. Two "groups" were to be left armed (and transformed into a national army): the 3rd Greek Mountain Brigade and the Sacred Band. Both groups were formed by the Greek government in exile, and were under the control of the Greek government. Both groups fought in battles against the Nazis. There is no question of collaboration among them.
As for the cops I'm sure there were collaborationists in their ranks, and obviously firing on the crowd was both wrong and a massive mistake. But this is no justification for anything the communists did.
Stalin was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's from 1922 until his death in 1953. In the years following Lenin's death in 1924, he became leader of the Soviet Union and the ComIntern.
One cannot have been a communist in Europe in these times without being in an active supporter of Stalin. The ComIntern and essentially all European communist parties were under strict control of Moscow/Stalin. Those who opposed Stalin typically faced a violent end.
Of course after Stalin's death and the concommitant weakening of communist power, most communists active during Stalin's times lied about their involvement.
You assume that all members of EAM/ELAS were communists. They were not. Also, there really was a window for them to take over: after the Nazis left and before the Allied forces arrived they were practically the only armed force in Greece. However they chose to wait.
Mark Mazower's "Inside Hitler's Greece: The Experience of Occupation 1941-44" is an excellent book on the subject.
While I do not know the specifications of your Elasticsearch cluster, I am really surprised by your experience.
We (at skroutz.gr) use a moderately small cluster (four nodes) and easily process > 4 million rows a day and view them on Kibana dashboards in real-time. We also have success running aggregations on data going back as far as 3 months.
Sure, but that doesn't mean both organization are equally committed to each language. Google has an entire team that works on Go full time and all their work is donated to golang.org which is opensource. Its not clear that Facebook is more than just a D user at this point.
I also have a seeking suspicion that Facebook never considered using Go because of Go's close Google ties, maybe if they didn't feel Google was a competitor they would have went with Go over D- we will never know.
As I understand it, they didn't 'go with D over Go' so to speak. They employ a fanatic of the language who wrote a piece in D, presumably with approval, and used it. There's nothing wrong with any of that, and I hope it works well for them. But I wouldn't say it was exactly chosen in advance for its merits, other than having an awesome programmer in the language, which can be one of the biggest reasons at times.
Since the authors claim that it is "Built on top of scalable frameworks such as Hadoop and Cascading" I guess that it is aiming to be production-ready while scikit is mostly for prototyping.
In that case then what is the added value compared to Mahout, the Hadoop-based ML framework?
I'm always extremely skeptical of such initiatives, because ML is not a magical black box where you put your data in one end and you get results on the other end. Automating the trivial parts of ML, ie. providing an API to a ML library, is a week-end project, but that in itself is useless. If you don't automate the hard parts of ML, such as feature engineering, then you're not providing any value at all.
Although I do agree that today's events show that Stallman is right to be that much worried, I have to point out that his argument against face recognition is a weak one. Computer vision is superior to human in many aspects, and this is why the situation we 're facing is very complex.
Maybe this comment is off-topic here but I can't help but feel that Watsi is in a way making all these individuals "compete" in terms of who is more likable, or whose situation is the worst, in order for them to get the help they need. Maybe I'm exaggerating but this model really troubles me.
How would you change the presentation to avoid this effect?
If candidates were presented one at a time, perhaps contributions wouldn't come in as effectively. If I see only one person in need and they're 60% funded, what gives me the sense of urgency that I should help as opposed to the momentum that this person already has?
Thank you for that link, I wasn't aware of that. Even though the reasoning behind their model is mostly logistics it is good to know that every person on Watsi will get his/her treatment regardless of when/if it gets funded.
I believe that information should be on a prominent spot on their website.
The blurbs on Watsi are fluff? No they aren't. They're so much the opposite of fluff that if that's what you mean, I'm going to ahead and say you've never looked at the site. Each profile on Watsi lists the specific medical condition that an actual human being needs remediated. For instance, paraphrasing, "had half of body horribly burned in petrol fire".
Just when I decided I'm only going to be using LTS releases in the future. If they actually go through with this I hope there will be a general update option like choosing between "conservative" and "cutting-edge" updates.
The proposal is to keep LTS releases - but lose the interim releases. I assume after an LTS release you'd be given an option "upgrade" to the next LTS testing branch which give you updates until it that LTS is released.
I propose they have three releases: Stable, for the bi-yearly freeze, Testing, for the generally-okay rolling update, and Unstable, for the untested cutting edge stuff.
