intarga

Is it only a matter of time until we privatise the police? I can't see anything at all going wrong with this...

Spot on, the best cure for burnout isn't a cure at all, it's prevention.

The real result of this is aggregators appearing, which present a unified interface to all banks, hiding the implementation details under their own interface. i.e https://www.neonomics.io/

>While the gaming market is (usually) seeking the highest top single core clock speed with respect to CPUs, it also relies on other expensive hardware. Meanwhile the dev/content creator/workstation market is much better served by these multi-core behemoths.

It's not really that cut and dried, plenty of dev workloads are better served by high top single core, while plenty of gaming workloads are better served by multi core.

I don't think it actually has anything to do with upvotes, but is just an indirect effect since highly upvoted pages are generally more trafficked, and it's the high traffic that really matters.

> Humans and animals are not equal. It's simple as that.

I don't disagree, but if that's the argument, then make that argument, instead of nonsense about being raised for slaughter.

I'm not arguing for veganism here, but your reasoning seems very flawed.

If being born and raised for slaughter makes that slaughter justified, then would it be ok to kill and eat humans if they were born and raised for that purpose? This argument doesn't hold water.

You're really overstating how hard it is to learn to program.

I'm a woman who studied physics and astronomy at university. In my final year I taught myself programming in my spare time because I was interested in it, and knew the job prospects were better than in physics. I had other hobbies and an active dating life at the time, but I still managed to get a software job straight out of university, and it's evolving into a fruitful career.

Learning to program in no way requires 3 years of monastic devotion.

“set -o vi” will give you vim bindings in bash

I don't think it's an indictment since it's a clear tradeoff. Yes git isn't intuitive or self explanatory for newcomers, but that's only because it's optimised to be maximally efficient for experienced users.

To me, this is a sensible decision. The target users of git will use it day in and day out for decades, in this case it makes sense to prioritise experienced usage. For onboarding new users there are plenty of good tutorials, and I think in the long run it makes sense to put the legwork in with those, rather than switch to a more intuitive but less efficient porcelain.

You could just do it the old school way: print out responses and put them in a ballot box.

Those two don't appear mutually exclusive

Banning advertising doesn't stop you eating what you want.

I think the problem is difficulty defining bullying. Fighting is easy, if you hit someone then you broke the rules, but bullying has a much more blurry line. At my school there was some attempt to crack down on bullying, but instances of bullying were regularly dismissed or reframed as "just banter".

Although I'm not personally a fan of it, I don't see what Gnome is lacking that you can get on those OSs you listed

> For example, traditionally the view that males should be providers for the family would have been considered a healthy aspect of masculinity. That doesn't go unchallenged any more; for example there is a real concern out there that men are too competitive and effective at securing high paid jobs.

That isn't toxic masculinity, it's a gender norm. What would be toxically masculine about it, is if a man felt forced by society to fulfill that role, regardless of his own feelings and desires.

Feminists challenge that norm and the societal pressure that drives it, but there's nothing wrong or toxically masculine with a man doing that because he genuinely wants to and isn't forcing anyone else into a role.

I know this is not your writing, and you just stumbled into this, but I am also intersex and am going to call that author out on their BS.

Sex assignment is the official term used for designating a sex to all babies[0] not just intersex ones. As such it is totally correct to use the terms AFAB and AMAB to describe non-intersex trans or even cis people.

The author most likely just has a bone to pick with trans people for using intersex people for their own ends, without sharing their visibility or talking about our issues. Which is a valid grievance, but this is not a valid outlet for it.

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

Thanks for the info! I stand corrected

Contrived hypothetical: It's tuesday evening, and I'm updating my to-do's before tomorrow. I have 3 hours after work, and 3 tasks:

1) A meeting (Important Urgent) 1 or 2 hours

2) Buy a gift for someone's birthday (Important - can be done any time but must be done) 1 hour

3) Check the marketplace for a limited sale (Urgent - much better if done immediately, but doesn't matter so much if not done) 1 hour

If task 1 takes only one hour, I do 3 then 2. If it takes two hours, I do 2.

There's two contexts above. Obviously as you pointed out, once you actually get to doing a task, there's only one context. But the point is that when adding a task to your to-do list you don't yet necessarily know what that future context will be.

Your choices here are to either make a priority queue for every possible future context (reasonable for this simple case, but doesn't scale to a more complex one), or mark tasks with the relevant information that will let you easily assemble the appropriate priority queue on the fly, once the context becomes clear.

>There is nothing to understand about that point. It's a linguistic distinction which makes no practical difference.

It does make a practical difference. Important tasks are higher priority under tighter time constraints and vice versa. I fail to see how this isn't a practical distinction.

>If you always lean towards Urgent things, you will neglect the Important. If you always lean towards Important things, you will neglect the Urgent.

If you do this you failed. The point is lean important when time constrained, urgent when not.

>Conversely: if you have a way to decide which task to schedule first, then (to you) they clearly have different priorities.

They have different priorities IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. One is higher when time constrained, the other higher when not. It is clear from reading your comments that you have not understood this.

Are you sure? From skimming their other posts, the author appears to be a trans man, but doesn't explicitly state pronouns or identity anywhere.

Is there something in particular necessary about animal protein, that it gets a distinct category from just protein in general?

It also stands to reason that if that many people really are dependent on fish, it will be devastating to them when overfishing and pollution destroy fish stocks. All the more reason to reduce fishing and build alternatives now.

Perhaps its my stupidity, but I don't see what this has to do with faking?

The point was that importance is not the same thing as urgency, which the parent comment didn't seem to understand.

>Choosing between Unurgent-Important<->Urgent-Unimportant is exactly the same problem as choosing between Urgent<->Important.

Sure, in the other formulation you simply make the assumption that the important task is unurgent, and the urgent task is unimportant, and so they are the same, as long as we're on the same page.

>You have two tasks: A or B. Which one should you work on first?

I actually did address this. If you have time for both the urgent one comes first, if you may have time for only one the important one comes first.

Urgent is not a synonym for important, and the point of drawing the distinction is to recognise that relative priorities can be different depending on context, such as how much time is available.

Urgent does not mean the same thing as important. Urgent tasks can be important or unimportant, but what makes them urgent is that they must be done soon/now rather than later, or that their value drops greatly if left to later.

Armed with this knowledge, we can categorise tasks in four: urgent-important, urgent-unimportant, unurgent-important, and unurgent-unimportant. Urgent-important tasks are always the highest priority, and unurgent-unimportant tasks the lowest. Where it gets interesting is between unurgent-important and urgent-unimportant tasks, the former should be prioritised if you do not have time to complete all the tasks, and the latter should be prioritised if you do.

>forced package management (as opposed to decentralized distribution of apps)

What??? This isn't true at all, you can install deb/rpm packages you download from the internet if you want, there's nothing stopping you. The truth is that you're strongly encouraged to install your applications from a trusted central repository because it's safer and more convenient.

I'd also note that this is not unique to Linux. Android, iOS (this one is actually restrictive), and macOS all use the same model too. Windows also tried it with UWP and their store, and mostly just didn't succeed for legacy reasons.

> they would have to rebuild their entire worldview around gender

I don't really understand this. When I'm talking to an adopted child, I have no trouble calling their parents their parents, even though they're objectively guardians. When I'm dining with religious folks, I have no trouble saying "Amen" or some such phrase from their religion despite me being an atheist.

Saying something you don't objectively believe out of consideration for others' feelings is normal, and it's fairly basic manners.

People also get shot in movies all the time, do you think that too should be acceptable behaviour?

Telling someone you're going to kill yourself if they don't date you is clearly just trying to be friendly.

I too am autistic, and it does not excuse this behaviour. Yes people should have compassion and patience with neurodivergent people, and everyone has been with Stallman. This is not one incident, but a string of incidents that show an underlying pattern.

The point stands, it's not any more dangerous than an earth sized object of the same mass, in fact it's less. It isn't any easier to divert from it's orbit, it is not any more likely to collide with the earth if diverted (in fact less so on account of its small size), and it would be no more destructive on collision.

What decides how good a slingshot something is isn't its density or mass (provided the mass >> than that of the object being slingshot), but rather its velocity relative to the sun. Planet 9 travels very slowly relative to the sun, and so is a poor slingshot, regardless of its density.