JasonFruit

Unless the brownies are falling from about 20 meters up, your indecision is wasted.

Thank God no libertarians made any money!

That being said, I agree with everything else in this article, and I agree that presenting print publications as "for the discerning reader" might be a viable approach.

Have you ever read "A Canticle for Leibowitz"? A peripheral bit in the story has a monk develop a mathematical system to determine what word would come next in a manuscript whose edge has been lost. Walter M. Miller, writing that story in 1959, does not portray such a system as having or being perceived to have "actual intelligence", because he can easily imagine that a complex system could appear to work in that way without intelligence.

The goalpost was never in that spot.

It's almost as though I'm right when I say that making nouns of adjectives causes confusion. If we must have nouns from serverless, solar, and contactless, we're damn well going to get supersonic, too.

That way, your language can use any toolkit, such as WebKit or Gecko.

> The biggest trick the Devil ever played was convincing people that online stuff is free. But the Devil always collects, sooner or later—and we are starting to learn the actual terms of this cursed deal.

I understand the author's point, but a lot of stuff online really is free! I give away my musical arrangements, my code, and my thoughts all the time, and so do lots of other people. There's all sorts of public domain stuff where people have used their resources to make it freely available to others. You can get lots of really valuable material online for free, really and truly. I'm old enough to remember having to pay, individually, for a book containing each one of Bach's works, and now they're available for free online, along with all of Schubert, Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven, Palestrina — I could not have imagined such a wealth of music when I was a young musician.

It's important to remember that search engines, walled-garden media hosts, and the like are going to worsen your experience to make money, but it's also important to remember that sometimes people do good, generous things because they want to make the world better.

If you read about the author, one of her roles is "activist". I think she worked some activism into the article there.

That goes both ways. Even when something annoys you, there are a lot of people who don't care.

Which is not always a reason not to say something when you believe it's important.

I've been inside violins a time or two, and removed a sizable mouse nest from an old French fiddle with a chewed F-hole.

The Reception section of the Wikipedia article[0] for this film is a real mix. I kind of want to see it, partly because I'm a sucker for both Vikings and airships, but also to see how critics could be so scattered in their opinions of the film.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_at_the_Top_of_the_W...

That violin looks like someone's empty attic. I can almost smell it.

It gets better when they're a little older. I'm now back to a book per week or so, now that they're 9 and older, and I homeschool them.

Absolutely do! I was reading John Calhoun's Disquisition on Government, which is not very long, but extremely dense, and full of those passages that sound at first as though they mean the opposite of the author's point, but work around to it by degrees. I struggled with it for a while before I realized that the wordiness was a disguise for poor or non-existent reasoning — at least, that's how it seemed to me — and went to read something better.

"Synonym" to "Cantons of Switzerland" Time: 79.737 Seconds

Number of links visited: 10

The path you took: [ "Synonym", "Morpheme", "Linguistics", "Language", "Language family", "Indo-European languages", "Germanic languages", "German language", "Swiss Standard German", "Switzerland", "Cantons of Switzerland" ]

"written in Rust" => "powered by steam"

Much better. Thank you.

Because structure lack gives annoy to understand. If words speech partshift we creation lots of confuse.

"Contactless" is not a noun, and I refuse to allow it to become one without opposition.

> often referred to as the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fellow)

That's… not what the second F stands for.

Every socially awkward person who obsesses about their intellect is an in-depth explainer of Goedel, Escher, Bach. It's a fun read, and clever enough, but the relation between the work of the three is pretty shallow, and if you understand only what the book contains, you haven't gotten very deep into their valuable work. The book is more an act of self-indulgence on the author's part, or at best a tribute to the brilliance of his subjects, than a profound intellectual achievement in itself.

project-picard

I suppose you can't really fault a person whose professional life requires her to view every event with the question, "How does this affect the fashion industry?" for viewing the attack on the twin towers in exactly that way — especially in this article, which was published as the "Fashion Notebook" column. The tweetstorm blames her for not relating what was told her by survivors and first responders, but those stories were probably passed on to her editors and used in other articles. This article is, obviously, shallow, which is not a fault: fashion is literally not even skin deep.

International House of Hypotheticals, Strawman Cafe, and the Red Herring Bar and Grill.

Sometimes now this is because of supply problems that make a single, consistent menu embarrassing to the business: nobody wants to have to say, "I'm sorry; we're out of salmon and eggplant, and we haven't had coconut milk for a week. Can I offer the three of you something else?" An electronic menu can be changed immediately and at practically no cost.

Well, I needed some noun. Any recommendations?

I once was down to my last dollar, and I bought my one and only lottery ticket ever. What could it hurt? I couldn't do anything to help myself with one dollar. I lost.

It sounds more morally acceptable to say, "The optimum level of anti-fraud enforcement does not eliminate all fraud." It's not that there's a nonzero amount of fraud that is optimal — all fraud is bad — but rather that the return on efforts to eliminate the last bit of fraud is negative.

I promise you I could come up with something appropriate.

> This solution worked well for the handful of emails I tried it on. I’m planning to run this on a cron to save myself some time and automatically maintain recruiter relationships.

Maintain recruiter relationships?! You're sending a glorified autoreply that plugs in a couple values. That is not maintaining a relationship. Luckily, there's no relationship to maintain, because the recruiter probably just blasted out an automatically-generated message to a list of contacts in the first place.

This sort of thing makes me sick. It's an abominable distortion of human interaction, and it makes our society worse.