I'm from the other side: a rural stay-at-home father who writes Python, Scheme, and C# (among others) on the side. I wouldn't live in Silicon Valley for the world. I have an email address with FastMail under my HN username.
"Is now open source!" is the new hot way to say "We quit." Open sourcing software you decided not to bother maintaining anymore is better than nothing, yes, but without a community devoted enough to it to keep it up to date, it's not much better than dead and gone.
I would be more likely to watch and learn about these DEADLY HOW-TOS if there was a hint in the title or description of what she's talking about. Apparently she values clicks over the 35th life.
This is a war carried out against a neighboring country for territorial and security reasons. It's wrong for all the reasons aggressive wars are always wrong, but I don't see it as genocidal in the "now we kill all the Ukrainians" way. There certainly have been genocidal policies by Russians against Ukraine in the past, but I don't see it here.
It's also very similar to the sort of talk I hear about Muslim immigrants in the United States: "In the first place they take jobs from Americans, in the second they want to impose Sharia law, and in the third place they support terrorism." There's always an 'other' who will be blamed, and we have to guard our minds against plausible talk like this.
Sometimes a smooth progression of difficulty is what you need to learn something, and this looks like it fits that bill.
I don't think it's for everyone, though — not that it claims to be. I can tell right off that I'd never finish the sequence. There are people who do better thrown in at the deep end, who find motivation in working through mounds of complexity to accomplish a goal that's interesting to them.
Maybe you don't end up with a perfectly rounded set of skills, but you do end up with an interesting result and the ability to accomplish some things well beyond what you have any right to be doing. If you watch for the right opening, you can make yourself very useful.
It's funny: when Americans realize we're saying the name of a foreign city badly, like Peking for Beijing, Canton for Guangzhou, and others, we move to assimilate our naming to that of the natives. Why is it that everyone insists that we refer to ourselves by the wrong name? Is it even possible for us to be wrong about what we call ourselves?
That's really interesting, because the first thing that came to mind was the rhythmic syllables used in carnatic music, and borrowed from there for western use in takadimi. I don't know if mnemonic devices like this are more common in Indian culture or not.
I think I have not made my explanation clear to you, because what you have written, and should not have felt compelled to write, supports what I'm saying. I'm saying that abortion will cease to be an issue when we can, technologically, end the pregnancy without terminating the unborn life, avoiding exactly the situation you describe. I'm very sorry that your wife had to experience what she did.
The only part of what you wrote that addresses my point is this:
> You seem to assert that there are wolves hiding in sheeps’ clothing, waiting until they are confirmed to show their true colors to save the country
Against this characterization I would oppose John Roberts, who was appointed by a Republican president, but has been reluctant to create any non-trivial precedent on topics that figure in the Republican platform. There's a lot of anger among Republican voters over that, but what can they do? They can't vote him out, he is not beholden to the Republican party, and he's done nothing impeachable.
I understand how this can be difficult to perceive from outside, especially if you happen to be in a bubble that perceives Republicans as uniformly deplorable. But I assure you that Roberts is viewed that way. (I view them from another direction entirely.)
As far as my stance being apologist or denialist, you have no idea what I think or want.
That's a possible view, though not my own. I personally think it is going to remain contentious until, technologically, we can remove the conflict of rights by allowing the child to come to term outside the mother's body. It would be hard to support a right to kill the child when it could mature with no additional inconvenience to the mother.
Why not, if he's now free to act as he pleases? The assertion is that he doesn't believe he's acting rightly, but does so under electoral pressure. If I'm naive, please explain: what's to stop him doing as he thinks is right, now that he's appointed?
> The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, we don't vote for Supreme Court justices. There's no leverage to impose electoral or party pressure on a justice who has already been appointed, unless it is by impeachment. Your assessment of their motivations doesn't hold up.
Whether right or wrong, they have definitely provided a counterbalance against democracy. The Court has stood for what it believes are the rights of people who are unable to participate in democracy because they have not yet been born. They are, in the eyes of democracy, a minority of zero, though they number almost a million per year. Whether or not you or I agree with them, they have acted as a check on democracy.
There are people who would dispute whether there's a helpless minority whose rights are being protected by this Court's decision. You can disagree on the resolution, but don't handwave away the almost unique conflict of rights abortion presents between the bodily autonomy of the mother and the right to life of the child. You'll convince nobody by proceeding so dishonestly.
I'm not about to dignify such an obvious bad-faith argument as is represented by your parody of originalism.
I loved the feeling of going somewhere, and nobody knew who I was or where I came from. Now, it's almost impossible to travel across town without a modestly-motivated person being able to find out about it. Does nobody else recognize the sacrifice of anonymity as a loss?
I've been using RSS more lately, with Liferea. It's nice, because I can a) remember the sources of information of which I'm interested in keeping track; b) read it in a readable format without a lot of the tracking and Javascript running; and c) not rely on social media to carry news to me with all the imposed biases and tracking that implies.
Office stores have exactly like that in the Midwestern American city I live near. I like paper, so I have my own printer, but for occasional prints in 11x17 I use this and it's great. Quick, cheap, easy.
Have you worked in a corporate environment? Copulating turtles isn't the half of the "very stifling environment that takes itself entirely too seriously." But they have no choice. How long would it take for someone to run to HR complaining of a "hostile work environment" because of the turtles? If a company doesn't have "policies in place to prevent this sort of imagery", they will as soon as the turtles show up.
The worst English teacher I ever had assigned us this to read, and then seemingly expected us to honor him for his cleverness. I did not find it clever then and do not find it clever now.
Well, of course we focus on natural theologians' arguments for the existence of God, because God's existence is logically prior to any other arguments you could have about Him. It doesn't matter what God as revealed in nature can teach us about predestination if God doesn't exist to predestine anyone.
I see. I thought you extended "inhumane practice" to the secretarial pool. What I don't understand is why people were afraid of typewriters before they were afraid of word processors and computers. They're frankly not that threatening.