iamdave

My chief complaint, personally about these sites is that I'll use it, just let me use it the way I want to in relative peace. That means: unless I subscribed to a specific type of update, I don't want to hear about it. No "In case you missed", no "Your other friends liked x, why don't you go indicate the same by interacting with UX feature 42", no "Hey friend 88 is on the platform, go look at what they're doing and signal your emotional reaction to it".

Never thought I'd ever say this: I want to see the baby pictures again. What are your families up to? How are you doing? Haha that video you shared is great, gave me a good laugh during my work break, here's a quick private message, let's catch up over a cold one this weekend. I miss our humorous conversations. THAT'S the kind of interaction I miss, when I was the one initiating it.

Some say this stuff is driving us further apart and I couldn't disagree more. It keeps us involved while respecting the fact that we want to have independent lives we live on our terms. It lets my friends four states a way know I'm not affected by the bombings here in Austin while also giving me another resource to pop in more 1-to-1 and see if I can crash on their couch when I come to town.

I like that. It allows groups of friends to breathe when the pressure isn't to share everything but actually....create....NETWORKS.

Get it social networking sites? I want to use these features, but I want to use them on my terms, for crying out loud.

So to anyone who wants to take up this challenge...I'm not telling you how to run your site, but if you heed the above I may sign up.

What's that? Why yes I have heard the phrase 'bikeshedding', why do you ask? ;)

He was definitely short-changed by Marvel and article takes that up at surface level so,I can't complain that much.

Stan Lee was always the more memorable name and face of the pair, but Batman was also always the face of Batman and Robin, the boy wonder still had plenty of recognition (a couple became other super heroes...one, unfortunately lost his mind). Though I am glad to see the article at least acknowledges Kirby as the titan he was behind the proverbial panels.

If your system is profitable though-or more importantly: consistent, you may realize more personal revenue by selling that system to traders; failing that-if you have any programming skills create an EA (Executive Advisor) for the MetaTrader platform that uses your trading system and sell that.

But good luck to you regardless, trading systems fascinate me.

(I'm personally curious to learn about your system though, as a hobbyist forex trader. My twitter handle is in the profile, if you'd like to DM me there. My personal system combines MACD, RSI and Bollinger Bands)

To understand and see how communities that aren't yours act, and interact with vernacular versus shuttering one's self behind the assumption that because your group sees x in a certain way, other groups must by default see it similarly.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqMODweN8lQ

I'm a black male, I happen to be somewhat in agreement with the commenter you're replying to here-because I happen to have felt that very sensation he describes in conversations very much like this one; that of people being offended on my behalf.

Why are you weaponizing race like this?

I don't speak for everyone, I'm merely speaking in observation: the former is the status quo, the latter I have seen completely derail threads (we're in one one of those box cars right now) and in my own opinion, which is mine and no one else's, not out of maliciousness (or at least, rarely so), but because of the clash when subscribers of the first group run into subscribers of the second group...

and neither one wants to give the other an inch.

Not here to be the voice of dissent for its own sake, merely an aviation enthusiast.

https://www.sheffield.com/articles/aircraft-dispatcher

I'm going to stand on the side of this issue and argue it's more than that the configuration of "Make X Y Again" was used by people circles of my friends dislike, it was a rallying call, a point of campaigning, to cause a deliberate division of people at the expense of individuals whose mere presence makes America less than great according to some-on deeply superficial grounds.

But yes, not really relevant to the discussion.

I will ask this though: In what ways is Medium difficult to read? Personally speaking it's one of the easiest sites to read, just curious what that experience is like for other people, clearly it's pronounced enough for someone to make a browser extension. Just wondering.

Edit: I do hate the amount of clicking that has to go on just to read "Network" responses, however.

the easiest way to get a big, shiny product is to just re-launch the same projects over, and over, and over

As someone commented about Hangouts, and me comparing it to other instances where we see similar behavior in the video game space.

It was meant to merely be an analogy and we got off the rails a bit, this was never intended to be some kind of long-winded jab at Nintendo for its own sake.

And I'm NOT the only person who thinks this way. Nintendo has said so themselves. Five years ago[1]. And we're still got a new device with the same familiar platform drop titles: Mario, Mario Kart and Zelda.

[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/technology/nintendo-admits-it-needs-...

At least Naughty Dog, the creators of Crash Bandicoot got out of their comfort zone and explored multiple different IP, despite Crash ostensibly being to the PS1 what Mario was to the N64, and Sonic the Hedgehog was to the Sega Dreamcast.

It's more common than you think.

Nothing in that comment surprised me and made me wonder if that kid was raised in a JW household before finally getting out of the house and turning hard into the party life. It's way too common of a story, kids raised under the thumb of the Watchtower Bible and Tract society going off to college, not having the church on their backs constantly, and practically cannonball into the party lifestyle that they'd been sheltered and repressed from their entire teenage years.

I know because I was one of those kids.

Replace Google with Nintendo.

And before you get angry at me (and I would maybe say justifiably because I grew up with Nintendo as well), I recommend you sit through a few episodes of Zero Punctuation! covering any of the following titles: Mario, Legend of Zelda, Metroid or Smash Brothers and tell me if you detect a theme that that curmudgeon Croshaw is trying to get across.

(Spoiler alert: Outside of their hardware division, Nintendo seems depressingly want for original ideas and IPs as far as gaming franchises go, which is probably a good thing to see Nintendo getting into the 'maker'verse with the switch cardboard stuff)

So yeah, 2/3 in 5 years getting quality remote jobs via reddit of all places.

/r/forhire, /r/devopsjobs, /r/sysadminjobs

I don't know if there's a term for it, but if anyone knows or can coin something on the spot to describe the phenomenon where the Drug War and other aspects of American criminal law has invariably irritated smaller undressed wounds within the criminal justice system and caused them to open up as larger festering problems that probably wouldn't have seen as much widespread public attention otherwise-outside of specialized legal communities and advocacy circles.

Examples of what I mean are, as mentioned Drug War -> Civil Forfeiture, PATRIOT Act -> Due Process for War Detainees, Snowden -> Due process for surveillance investigations, etc.

At the end of the day we are still talking about people who have the same basic Constitutional rights as everyone who isn't an elected (or appointed) official, right? The moral and ethical scrutinies are certainly higher than they would be for you or I as mere voters, the legal scrutiny is unquestionably higher-this much I am not here to dispute or question.

It is this:

How do you build a bridge between holding your officials to a high standard and ensuring their ability to conduct the tasks of governing with integrity without ourselves resorting to destroying certain pillars of our legal system-either prescriptively or descriptively to do so?

I understand fully this is possibly opening up pandora's box to all sorts of logical conceits and philosophical interrogatives about society, but I also believe this sort of dialogue cannot be had in ernest without doing so.

I suppose you'll have to pardon my cynicism towards how exploitable the general public is, or rather, how exploitative 24 hour political coverage is, at large to be worrisome that this wont just end up in pronounced levels of Tall Poppy Syndrome spreading through the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

Edit: Let me clarify something before it gets confused, I am not suggesting that the sort of inquiry on finances you're proposing is itself an example of Tall Poppy, I am saying that left unchecked the sort of thinking that goes into "we need use financials to vet the worthiness our prospective politicians" could have the result of overcorrecting the inquiry of integrity and objectivity in office to many of the symptoms endemic to the Tall Poppy phenomenon.

Shotgun reaction (knee-jerk, better phrase probably): no but Trump is such an exigent outlier here because of his immense footprint in various financial endeavors. Apply the same scrutiny to every citizen who steps up even to serve on city council, taken to it's extreme conclusion and you have John Q. Public getting grilled over his financials because someone found out he accidentally bounced a rent check in 2001 when he was in college.

But that's also why I made the qualifier of someone with a fiduciary responsibility to certain public trusts. Trump clearly fits this as someone with vetted interests in a very large (private) corporation and other business interests.

Don't get me wrong here: I definitely agree and value a thorough review of a candidate's worthiness for office, I'm still incredulous about the path we have to go down when we start looking at an individual's finances as an indicator of public service to the extent of running for office.

Said a better way: I'm looking at the extremely long view of this and having reservations about our ability to remain objective on the matter. So if we scale back from the extreme conclusion of Mr. Public and his bounced rent check from 2001, what does the middle ground look like and what is the framework for how the logic ladder works over asking candidates running for public office to disclose their financial 'worthiness' (read: I'm using this separately from the obvious disclosures that one may already be morally obliged to turn over such as relations one's business may have to government entities they would invariably preside over) and you may end up convincing me to change my mind.

You had me with the other two, I don't know about this one. In the absence of criminal financial malfeasance, or deliberately poor mishandling of instruments an official had some responsibility over as an individual acting in the public trust, I can't think of a compelling argument for why this needs to be the public's business.

I can only presume, but I'm with pause to put words into your mouth that this is probably want you meant?

I'm going to take a close look at this, cheers!