Fuck, I’ll look at code I wrote like a month ago and be like, “what was I thinking?”. So I try to fix it, run into some stupid issue and be like, “oh, right.”
And this is why comments are useful on code who’s purpose or reasoning isn’t super obvious or even looks counter intuitive.
You realize you are also being abusive with your terminology and spreading of really poor stereotypes? You’ve also been condescending. You also tried to say explicitly something was only about you while trying to use that to describe literally other people? You also then continued to say your definition is yours alone but then tried to use it as a way to convey meaning to a general audience?
Abusive language isn’t necessarily poor communication. There is nothing ironic there. It doesn’t fit the definition of the word at all.
You’ve been both offensive and poor at communicating though.
If I need to say it, yes, I am, and you’re a shitty person for even asking.
I’m done. And you’re terrible and should be ashamed.
feel free to identify yourself
Fuck that. No one should have to share their anything even remotely shared to their mental health for some sort of odd gatekeeping purposes.
I gave my opinion. You are a terrible communicator and using a condition in a way that is offensive and then trying to force people to put themselves when they may not want to. So fuck that even more. That’s shameful behavior. If you want to be offensive and communicate poorly, so be it. That’s my opinion. And so be it. If you can justify forcing people to do things and if you can justify using derogatory statements to describe other people, which you literally did, that’s on you. We’re done here.
You literally just defeated your own argument. You just made the claim its your own personal definition and therefore would need to be described every single time you use it otherwise you would have a failure of communication.
Autism is different for everyone and that’s why it’s terrible to use it to describe the details of something.
And you aren’t describing your own experience. You are describing a government system. If you are admitting it’s extremely defined and only works in your head and not whoever you’re talking to, you will have a failure to communicate.
Edit: actually, that folks disagreed with you enough to comment is more a sign of that failure than any explanation I can provide. And you still provided it as a way to describe other autistics despite claiming otherwise.
This is a very poor understanding of autism. You’ve taken such a small sliver that this comparison is going to not only offend a lot of people but also confuse a lot of people. The given properties you’re invoking are such a small subset of autism and not even that widespread and hell, it ignores the core reasoning behind some. Brutal honesty is often tied with inability to be empathetic. You’re doing yourself a disservice using autism as your “model” here.
Looking into it, I can see some issues with the idea (I don’t understand how it wouldn’t fall pretty to the tragedy of the commons), plus I definitely don’t think Sanders would fit into there. I don’t see any of his proclaimed positions fitting into any definition of left-libertarian. Plus I don’t see how left-libertarian wouldn’t fall prey to the same problem we have with capitalism now, despite being an anti-capitalist notion. It’s strong sense of individual ownership of anything other than natural resources seems at odds with a lot of other socialist concepts. I will caveat all of this with saying I have a very limited understanding of left-libertarianism, but just reading any given definition just seems to give rise to very clear contradictions. I feel like either it is problematic or no one is really sharing good definitions of it.
Libertarian cannot work without socialism essentially. You cannot have a free market where the worker doesn’t own the means of production. Power will always pool to select individuals and those who have collected power have shown no remotely reliable track record to serve humanity’s best interest over their own. In fact, it’s regularly shown the exact opposite. Libertarianism is just an excuse to act against the good of society for your own benefit and fuck anyone you step on along the way. I’ve never heard a defense of libertarianism that is actually good for society. It’s basically just dressing up the belief you can’t be forced to do good, so you can’t get in trouble if you do bad.
Folks aren’t even able to get out of debt. Considering debt generally has a higher interest rate than savings, folks are even held back from saving. OP even mentioned that straight out. If you’re a disaster away from destitution, you aren’t investing money. Money years from now isn’t worth more than money today when your bills are due today.
Generally it’s more about the interaction. If the user views it as interacting with the viewport, it tends to be inverted. If the user views the interaction as interacting with the scroll bar, it’s “natural”. Scroll wheel is the only odd one out. However it was introduced prior to mousepads supporting gestures. So it basically started as an extension of the scroll bar interaction, but as mousepads introduced the concept of interacting with the viewport, scroll wheels were given the option to respond either way based on user preference.
I mean, your given example isn’t actually an example of your previous points. Its not a “every cloud has a silver linings” statement, it’s a “I still believe in God even when bad things happen. This isn’t proof of neither his non-existence or his non-caring.” Eve your example is a poor thought experiment because it assumes a limited power god who can only break your foot, but can’t actually prevent the drink driving accident in any less painful way.
It’s a “I’m going to pretend this was supposed to happen and is a good thing regardless of whether good things come from it.”
It’s the response to “earthquake kills 1000s”.
The other, less religious reasoning you provided is much more clear and less stretches with a lot better phrases. Even your descriptions would work better than providing the phrase itself to someone who is currently hurting. This phrase ultimately defends the bad thing as a good thing instead of telling the person shit happens, play the cards you were dealt, you can still win even when you’re coming from behind.
Of course, we have more traditional links and images in our search results too, which we largely source from Bing.
https://duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/sources/
So I wasn’t totally right in that it doesn’t all come from Bing, but it largely does.
If I recall correctly, DuckDuckGo uses Bing’s search database (not search itself, just the database).
It’s worth the weird name if you care about maintaining privacy rights.
If it has been done after school, they’d complain about police interrupting dinner. This was a no win situation. I guess they could have asked the parents to bring the kid in, but I don’t see why white glove service is required for an ugly crime like that.
Don’t threaten to kill people and you won’t be ‘shamed’ by getting arrested at school.
Can we stop the overuse and over-generalization of “enshitification” which Doctorow had given very explicit meaning to in regards to social networks? It does not simply mean commoditization which is not quite the same but almost synonymous with 'race to the bottom’s in regards of trying to increase revenue while simultaneously decreasing costs.
Edit: I’ll admit narrowing to “social networks” is a bit too narrow, but the point still stands that it’s for two way platforms where there are “two markets.” Phillips Hue does not have a two sided market.
It’s not internal, but there are other private address ranges beyond 192.168.0.0/16. 10.0.0.0/8 is another common one. Container platforms like to use 172.16.0.0/12.
If it’s your only layer of security, it’s not good. But when a website doesn’t tell you whether or not an email account exists when you try a username and password, it’s still obscurity (you’re not confirming one way or the other) but it’s still a useful level of security. IPs are generally not given out for a reason. Most people don’t even realize they don’t get hacked simply because they aren’t targeted. That you even route local traffic via the internet is interesting to begin with and makes me wonder if you truly are prepared for a targeted attack. Maybe you decided it’s not worth the effort but maybe you don’t know how. I don’t know. But nonetheless, you’re making yourself more of a target.
They’d have to do best effort against charging devs for pirated copies.
Telemetry is also easily blocked. As a business, I’d trust that a lot less. It’s why many enterprise licenses are simply self reported. The punishment isn’t worth lying enough to make a difference.
Most companies would trust devs as the devs are not big enough to survive a legal fight they’d certainly lose with prejudice, meaning they’d pay court costs as well.
There is no way they’ll just make up a bunch of invoices for small developers. That would be too time consuming, plus they’d need to show reasonable effort in determining the invoice. It’s best to just let the devs do all the work with the fear that an audit can cost them so much more money than they’d save if they lied.
For someone who gets paid hourly, I’m only willing to go so far with unpaid work past when I’m supposed to stop.