XcQ, link stays blue
XcQ, link stays blue
That would be perfect, yes
On one hand, I think it perfectly acceptable and reasonable to oppose the enemy’s employment of some measure on the grounds of them being your enemy and you wanting to defend yourself while simultaneously employing the same measure for your own policy goals. That’s usually how war works, whether cold or hot: weapons are employed if they’re effective, regardless of whether they’re fair for the other side, because you can’t really trust the opponent to also refrain from using an effective weapon.
Mutually Assured Destruction works as a nuclear deterrent because its sheer destructive power risks killing your own people too, and most countries’ grand strategy prioritises their own preservation over the enemies’ destruction. Chemical weapons were “banned” because they were of little value to the major powers’ military system, which has less people hiding in foxholes and trenches, generally making conventional munitions blowing up moving targets more effective than denying an area to your own mobile forces in the hopes of dislodging a dug-in enemy that might have protective equipment anyway.
On the other hand, I resent the damage warfare does to civilians, whether in the form of actual destruction or just sowing division and strife between their factions. Arguably, it might be defensible if you’re simply exposing the truth and hoping to convince a sufficient majority to act on those revelations, but who would be the judge? Who could vouch for that? How could propaganda even account for the nuances and complexities of the issue they’d hypothetically expose without neutering its own effect?
So yes, I’d prefer to see money spent on fixing issues, education in critical thinking, communicating nuances the enemy’s propaganada glosses over or misrepresents. Making your opponent’s situation worse doesn’t help your people. Even if it might “defeat” the enemy in some sense - render them unable or unwilling to oppose you - it creates misery.
The only winners are those that profit from the issues and/or the conflict and don’t care about the individual peasant: Corporate executives, large shareholders, politicians campaigning on them…
(I don’t think I needed to spell that one out, but given the topic, it felt appropriate to be clear)
Linux is free and open source software ecosystem. It’s like handing people free brushes, canvases and paints - sure, removing the financial hurdles may enable talents otherwise unable to afford indulging their artistic streak, but you also can’t really prevent anyone from painting awful bullshit. Best you can do is not give them attention or a platform to advertise their stuff on.
That’s the price of freedom: It also extends to assholes. We can’t start walling off Linux, so the best we can do is individually wall them off from our own life and hope enough other people around us do it too.
And their runtime uses pressure-vessel to put games into controlled containers
How does suing in a different country work, for instances in Europe? Do they actually have any leverage?
Good luck finding “all the domain names”. IDK about suing, but unlike centralised monoliths like Facebook, you’d have to sue every instance violating your rules separately, and that’s assuming you can pin down who and where to sue for each of them.
You seem really invested in pointing out those shortcomings. I respect that.
I got out-pedanted? Impossibile!
Bene factum
Actually, the right looks like a Kallax, which are probably the sturdiest item in their catalogue given the walls are like 3cm (1.2 in) thick. I’ve taken them apart and reassembled them before, and unlike every other piece of Ikea furniture I’ve done that to, they’re actually just as stable and reliable as before.
Okay Imma pick a fight here. Your suggestion is the opposite of pedantic. It advocates for a “vulgarisation” of Latin loanwords (in the sense of “making them more like common words”).
I want to go back to pluralising more words in line with their Greek or Latin roots. I want to reverse the perfectly natural and reasonable linguistic shift you’re proposing and instead restore or retain that piece of linguistic anachronism as long as possible.
That’s what I do too - if it’s a meeting I care about, I make the effort to suggest a different time. Otherwise, just decline. My calendar is visible and up to date, use the fucking scheduling assistant to tell you when I have time ffs.
Could this be normalised against the baseline distribution of languages for the respective platforms / software categories to see if there are any notable deviations?
it’s now 18:53, and while I respect that it seems nonsensical when parsed as a number, I find 1853 more convenient to write on mobile (and it does save two keystrokes on keyboard too).
Miss me with that “1-1=12” shit.
Having toyed with video game reverse engineering, I definitely feel like I ought to learn a bit more. I understand mov
, pointers and registers, and I think there was some inc
and add
in the code I read to try to figure out base pointers and pointer paths (using Cheat Engine), but I think knowing some more would serve me well there.
What language is your pseudocode example modeled after? It vaguely reminds me of some iOs App code I helped debug (Swift?) but I never really learned the language so much as eyeballed it with educated guesses, and even with the few things I double checked it has been a few years, so I have no clue what is or isn’t legal syntax anymore.
Let’s pair it with proper sex ed. Destigmatise sex work, break the taboos, but also teach people what is and isn’t okay or healthy, how arousal works for different sexes and why their dick isn’t God’s gift to womankind.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
In this case, the law being freedom of speech, the protection being to say what they want and the binding being to prohibit others from curtailing that. Naturally, the push for inclusive language is part of a movement to curtail that freedom and needs to be reversed and pushed back against.
This post gave me cancer.