mememachine

Many of us don't want it to be anything more than that. That's what the rest of our life is for.

I'm actually not trolling... I was making a real effort to have a genuine discussion here believe it or not. To be honest I'm not sure what I did wrong, and I'm definitely not pleased with this result.

What gives away electron to me is the really giant non-native UI elements. Its like everything is as bloated as the underlying system!

rofl ok dude

What we really need is that fast to start up apps for customer acquisition and then the long term downloads as an offering for the customers who want the speed.

As a developer I'd also prefer to use QT. I actually enjoy C++ a lot and writing performant, pleasant apps. Slow bulky electron apps are the bane of my existance but maybe they look good to an over-budget project manager.

You dont know what he means? They dont feel like native, they feel like web apps.

Im not sure I believe that youre really trying to be polite here at all. Youre playing a game kids play. Maybe you dont realize that.

>It is always the asshole's fault for being an asshole and making others uncomfortable. It is no one's responsibility but their own. Put this victim-blaming nonsense back in some dark hole where it belongs.

Youre wrong.

>You also seem to believe that people have no responsibility for making people around them comfortable unless they are explicitly told it is making them uncomfortable. Everyone has a responsibility not to be ass.

I do not believe this.

>My problem with your comment is the entitlement you claim to define acceptable behaviour of those being abused "what I demand from anyone who wants to call themselves a victim". Also people don't want to call themselves victims, they are victims who may feel able to make that known.

Well if they want my sympathy those are my standards, sorry.

And by the way this:

>Also people don't want to call themselves victims, they are victims who may feel able to make that known.

Is not remotely true.

>If you're curious about it, your HR department probably has some training materials.

There you go again, with the pointless grandstanding.

It seems like you never had any intention of having a genuine discussion, since I can't find a single one of your comments that doesn't read as venomous and disingenuous. You're exactly the type of person that needs HR, and I mean that in a bad way really.

Ok.

What do you mean by "objectively observed"? Obviously im not asking in general, but in this case.

The "logical consequences" you've throught through dont come from my argument. They sound vaguely like my argument, but theyre not mine, and you know that.

This is why I dont respect you, roughly.

Of course, and I don't disagree about any of this (nor does anything I have said so far). I think you're missing my point here.

Also I'd appreciate a response in the other threads we have!

I didnt read this one, I read the first one, and in the first they were a victim for sure.

If you want to project some ulterior motive onto me, go for it. Don't pretend its got anything to do with what I actually think, though.

Im not sure how you got to this from my comment, but ok.

>Personally, the uber story absolutely did not read that way. The issue is with people in these comments making overly broad claims.

From my comment. Again, I specifically addressed this. Did you read my comment?

> nobody calls me an asshole

I specifically addressed this. You didnt read my comment?

Thaat would be a really wonderful thing. Although im not as much a fan as 1 profile universally.

Of course I don't think all climate scientists would've over looked it, I think probably the friction is between climate scientists and people who report on (and thus people who end up talking about) climate scientists. I think its perfectly possible that the results arent as dramatic or causally linked as theyre portrayed to be, and I have yet to see a genuine consensus to prove me wrong.

And lets not pretend one or two papers that make bold claims hold much water.

I've been misled by popular media many times, so color me unsurprised that they might be selling some bullshit about this as well. (Not that they certainly are.)

(if its used)

>Rather because if the probability weren't so, global warming, as an unprecedented thing, wouldn't be discussed outside of scientific circles yet.

Heres where we disagree.

I actually find comments like yours far more obnoxious than level-headed criticism. This communities purpose is not to be a marketing team for whoever wants to post here. Criticism is much more edifying than blind support.

Im not making an accusation that climate scientists wouldnt calculate this, because its not something thats in the content of the paper were discussing. My accusation is that you (or whoever i replied to) didnt have that data.

At the same time I wouldn't be surprised if there were climate scientists who chose to avoid these sorts of calculations.

Also, the p-value might tell you whether or not an event like this would literally be one of your samples, but its not whats going to tell you whether or not a reconstruction from these samples contains information about these events. Although I guess its not much of a distinction.

I'm aware of what a "p-value" is but what were talking about is reconstruction from historical samples and its perfectly calculable what kind of events wouldnt show up in that reconstruction (and p-values have almost nothing to do with it). Your attitude is obnoxious.

With the quality of data we have from the past your reconstruction can only be so accurate. Its not a stretch to say our reconstructions cant really predict the short term spikes were trying to compare against.

You'll probably get flak for linking to breitbart.

How unlucky we would have to be sounds like something you can calculate rather than just claim off hand.

Im not saying all writing is bad, so his comment just wasnt even relevant.

He seems like he doesnt even know why he thinks writing is good, and if i were him id be a little embarassed.