JasonFruit

I'm not sure they appreciated you demonstrating their superfluity, even if you believed it was for their own good. I was once or twice in my career surprised by such ingratitude before I realized that some jobs continue as both soft charity and a means of inflating managerial importance under a polite fiction of usefulness.

I can serve someone while being neither a servant nor subservient.

We're not losing the information that light colors heat less in the sun. Neither could anyone who spent five minutes on a black roof in the sun forget that tidbit. It's just that other factors than the energy required to cool a building took precedence in the past.

Most Gemini clients do decent wrapping, but it's pretty much up to them how that's done.

Maybe Facebook doesn't really care if it's bad at that category of search, since nobody in their right mind would use Facebook to figure out where to get burritos.

Is it true, though, that academic works don't spin a narrative? That's a large part of what historians do: attempt to reconstruct a consistent version of events, what caused them to occur as they did, and what their effects were — in short, construct a coherent narrative. There might be a difference in emphasis on the average, with pop history focusing more on the narrative and less on facts that might be inconvenient to it, but some of the best and most influential rigorous historical works are those that present an interpretation of historical events that requires reevaluation of the narrative of preceding work.

There's nothing useful about this tangential comment.

Since a few verses are in the KJV but not the NIV, some would never appear in searches.

This is pretty good! I entered, "Every human thought is only evil," and got, among others, the verse I hoped for, Genesis 6:5: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." "David cried" got me some unexpected results for "the Son of David", but also the verse about David and Jonathan I expected, and a couple others that were a very good fit.

…and it's gone.

A point of view I can imagine on these infractions is this: it is necessary that there be a clear line between what is legal and what is not, and that all the law be enforced. Failing either of those, officers have the opportunity to selectively enforce the law in a way that is biased, brings them profit, or intimidates people for reasons outside the law. For that reason, every infraction, no matter how minor, must be enforced, and if it's unfair, law will have to change to exclude those edge cases. Otherwise you have unjust chaos.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think it's not irrational.

That's because I'm almost uniquely poorly placed to evaluate community opinion of this officer.

One of the smartest men I know was a police officer. He was frustrated with the poorly thought-through rules of the job and with his coworkers and commanders, and was never happy in that job as far as I could tell. He was indeed too smart to be a cop, or at least too smart to have wanted to be. It would have been better for him if he had been rejected.

Was he a good cop? Depends on what you mean by that. He was non-violent, and conscientious, and principled, and enforced the law with unusual accuracy and precision — but whether his superiors were satisfied with his performance, I can't say. I'm inclined to imagine that they found his resistance to what he saw as bad, stupid, or unethical policies inconvenient, and his enforcement of what they saw as trivial violations tiresome. I'm inclined to doubt that his superiors appreciated his intellect.

Are we really sure that it's unreasonable to reject an applicant because he is too smart, if it creates a dissatisfied officer and dissatisfied superiors?

I really like to use virtual desktops to isolate windows for a particular task: one for programming, one for social media, one for music notation, one for writing. Sometimes I have one of my kids making a Minecraft texture pack or something like that on my computer, and I'll stick that on a desktop of its own. It may be that I'm easily distracted, but I really love that feature.

Half a million people ought to be worth something.

Why does it matter? A good HTML editor ought to be able to take in HTML, display it and edit it according to the user's preferences, and save it in a size-minimizing way. Why should we have to choose only one way?

I don't think that's what was under discussion, at least as far as I could see. Yes, I agree that it's silly to go on paying forever to see Steamboat Willie, but I'm not going to download a bootleg copy of Infinity War, even though it sucked.

It's not just convenience. Some of us would rather stream content legally because it's a straightforward way to make sure the creators of what we watch or listen to get some compensation. I'm getting something I want from them, and their expectation is to get paid; I'd be doing wrong if they didn't get something in return.

I do miss that sort of thing, but these days I would stop responding much, much quicker than I used to.

That would require people who in many cases don't care about the software to retain the source for thirty years, which would be burdensome.

I love the sarcastic tone --- it's delightful! Please keep doing that.

My point is that Alibaba is not selling counterfeit scallops. What you wrote did not contradict the comment to which you were responding.

There's a difference between "fake" and "counterfeit"; the latter is when it's fake and you're up to no good.

I can't disagree with any of that, but I only know about it from that song, so, anecdote two, I guess.

I think you could write an article titled "The term x as it is commonly used is misleading," substituting any common historical term for x. So while this is true, I'm not any more bothered by it than using "slave" to describe all the varied forms of servitude in the ancient world, to choose the first example that occurs to me.

In a rigid airship, the lifting gas is usually contained in smaller balloon-like cells inside the frame, which do not fill anywhere near all the available space. Your estimate is probably considerably over, though your concern is still reasonable.

(EDIT: they're not called ballonets; ballonets are used to maintain pressure in a non-rigid airship.)

You're one of the good ones, then. (Though there is something to, "If I can't hear me, they can't hear me.")

I'd say that's at least the late-19th and early-20th Century consensus view, and I'd be inclined to agree that there are very few makers from the late-18th through the mid-20th Century that were making really exceptional instruments. Other people today would insist that there's no advantage at all to a Strad or del Gesu, and that there are lots of instruments by Storioni, Pressenda, Vuillaume, and others that are just as good. (I don't agree.)

That being said, Stradivari and Guarneri were not so highly-rated in their own lifetimes; the Amati family and Jacob Stainer fit the ideal of tone and power of that time. It was only as violin technique and string and bow technology improved, and older instruments were modified with stronger bass bars and back-tilted necks mortised into top blocks, that the Stradivari and Guarneri instruments became so highly-prized. It's almost as though they only really worked properly when technique and technology advanced to be able to fulfill the tonal goals the makers had for their instruments.

A dealer once let my wife play a small, anonymous old Italian cello. She loved it! 100K.

At least the dealer that handed her a Strad told her what it was. She preferred the little Italian.

About $16K, 20 years ago when I was leaving grad school. It was really magnificent, and the price was not too high at all, but it was beyond anything I could raise at the time.

Nagyvary has made different claims about the "secret of Stradivari" over the last thirty? forty? years, and they're all authoritative, and none of them explain why Stradivari's instruments are so valued. I'm confident that the real secret of Stradivari is a lot of things, all working together, that he learned by being an excellent craftsman with a good ear and analytical mind, and by being trained by the greatest violin maker before Stradivari, Nicolo Amati, who was likewise trained by previous great makers of his own family.

There's no one change that, applied indiscriminately to an instrument, will reliably improve it. There are lots of things that work together to make a great instrument, and a great maker knows how to balance them.

(Side note: I'm also confident that there are instruments being made today that will equal Stradivari's given time enough. In my own experience, one viola made by Michael Darnton of Chicago was markedly better than any of the old Italian instruments I've played, though they were not of the first rank. That was an instrument fit for any use, and if I could have afforded it, I would never have let it go.)

Except, real talk, we only know the parts of Don Juan that show up on auditions. The rest we sorta fake.