ohdannyboy

I'll admit I'm a novice with Photoshop, I've never used it for more than a moderately complex task. Usually simple cuts and meme making type stuff. I also once designed a poster that required me to make a vector background and arrange some ripped svg elements from a old swf file.

Every time I try GIMP it's a nightmare. Even the simplest thing usually makes me find a video to explain where to find it. Cutting, pasting and layer management is a pain. For super simple stuff I use Pinta and anything marginally complex I use photoshop and it's always felt easy.

I know that's hardly scientific but I've always seen photoshops interface as good.

It would not shock me to learn that GIMP has been a multi decade study to find out how bad a UX has to be before the FOSS community starts to care.

Probably not. Law enforcement regularly targets drug stings against individuals they think are dealers but can't yet prove. It's still just an offer the subject wanted to engage in.

Law Comics did a good job breaking the idea down and dealing with common misconceptions https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633

That's every LWT. The whole infotainment genre does it but IMO that show is one of the worst in terms of fairness despite being very well made. It's hard to make a funny video about how obvious a complex issue is while not being very one sided.

I acknowledged they probably couldn't get the same pay in my post... A social safety net has the same problem. My point was they could retool and have above average skills to lean complex machinery, handle stress, make decisions, ect. I don't think risk of destitution is three major issue.

I agree insurance is probably the best way, but even that doesn't help with the purpose and social status part, which I think are the largest factors. Plus if the insurance covers career advancement losses the incentives become really adverse, if it doesn't there's still massive economic losses.

I think any solution would also need a way to get back in. No need to lose everything because you had a bad time once.

If you're competent enough to be a pilot you're competent enough to make money other ways so it's not destitution. The issue is losing the level of income they make (more than any safety net could pay) and a loss of purpose since most commercial pilots are pilots to the core. Not to mention status and social standing.

My safety versus someone else's rights?

Convince someone that they'll never be the "other" and rights become a far away theoretical concept.

The political and singles groups were Meetup based, the rest were not.

I don't know your solution, but I can speak for what worked for me when I found myself in a very similar predicament. This was in conjunction with seeing a therapist about some of the reasons I wasn't spending my time socially when it was clearly what I needed (beyond the scope of what I'm willing to write here). I consider myself pretty extroverted and I am far, far happier than I was in 2020 when the problem was at its worst (the lockdowns were only a catalyst).

I just started joining social activities and seeing what stuck.

- I did Muay Thai classes but while I enjoy the sport, I didn't make any friends at the gym so I moved on (I work out at a more casual boxing gym now and enjoy it)

- I play a lot of social sports leagues. At this point its mostly with people I already know but I joined as free agents for a solid year, usually in 2 at any given time. These were mostly weeknights (WFH makes this a lot easier). There's a group of us who regularly do things ranging from bowling to dinner parties, I'd say I have about 5 moderately close friends from this circle.

- Went to random singles meetup groups. I actually met 2 of my closest male friends at a singles group that only 1 girl showed up to (I'm a guy btw). We started talking, kept in touch and became extremely close. I regularly take vacations with these two. I've met several friends through them too.

- Took improv classes. I met a lot of interesting people here since I never really had an artistic outlet before (having an artistic outlet turned out to be a great thing too).

- Joined a political group and met a few people there, one of whom is among my closest friends. He got me into Muay Thai and we usually see a movie every week or so.

- I avoided tech and gaming groups since they're so heavily male and well within my comfort zone.

This is largely a numbers game. I don't keep in touch with or even remember the vast majority of people I've met in these groups. But everyone I currently spend time with I met via the above.

    Think about it: what do most, non-autistic people, who don't-use-computers, do on the weekend? They go to bars! They probably get laid, too!!

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Groups of friends go to bars to socialize. Not everyone goes out and gets laid from there, plenty of people just want to hang out with their friends.

Church I understand because they often function like a small-town community, but unions?

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm also not sure what your reply has to do with mine.

Can we just all agree it's the people and ideology we don't like messing everything up here? As long as we don't get more specific we can find some common ground.

Bullet dodged IMO. I'd rather work somewhere where talent, productivity and genuine charisma gets me ahead instead of ass kissing (yes, it's always ass kissing... These letters are never sent out of a genuine gratitude for being able to interview with you).

I wouldn't invest in Intel. They're definitely past their peak and most of their battles right now center on not becoming obsolete.

Don't forget TempleOS, lest you be religiously intolerant.

At a feature level Bing is super competitive, if not outright superior with their AI search features. It hasn't proven effective yet in becoming people's idea of the defacto search, but it is competing (see Googles humiliating AI launch).

> But does the other side get the resources to have an attorney of the same caliber? If not, it's not a fair trial, and that's not how a justice system should work.

I don't consider the sides equal coming in. The state is the accuser, with an exclusive right to file charges and they can do full investigations. They have taxpayer funding so they are far richer than all but the very richest people they go after. They also make the extremely complex system of laws that only experienced professionals can navigate. The deck is already stacked extremely in their favor in almost every way. I don't get your obsession with making sure the accused person has their money taken to level anything that might be in their favor.

> In your system, the rich will always have better lawyers, and will get away with crimes, and that's precisely what I'm trying to say we need to change. The rich should NOT have better lawyers just because they're rich. They can have better houses, better cars, better vacations, and better Michelin food, but no, they should not have better lawyers than everyone else.

I'm not disputing that the poor do get shafted in the current system and the rich are at an advantage. The fact that you want a better justice system doesn't make the idea you proposed any less insane.

> So why not? Or get a cheaper lawyer yourself that's more fair to the other side.

Because that is money I could and should be able to use to defend myself. And should my defense be successful that's my retirement money and financial security. I don't care about fair for the government, they accused me of something I didn't do. There is a 0% chance that a states attorneys salary will get me a private attorney of the same caliber. That's just not how it works.

> There's a lot of rich people out there who get away with some really bad crimes just because they have really clever private attorneys.

So what? Why should my ability to defend myself be compromised because someone with more money could afford a better lawyer?

The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental building blocks of our justice system. Prosecuting someone and making them fund their prosecution is a terrible idea, not a "rebel" one. The government already holds most of the cards here, this idea only cripples middle class and lower-end rich folks while not doing anything against the billionaires.

Let's say I have something like $1M to my name (total assets) and I'm accused of a serious crime. I'm ready to spend it all to not go to prison for decades, but the AGI of the prosecutor is like 1/3 of my respectable private attorney. State prosecutors make garbage so this isn't far fetched. I now have to fund the government and give a significant percent of my assets just to defend myself?

Making somebody fund their own prosecution during trial is probably the least rebel thing I've ever heard.

The subject of timekeeping is called horology. For collectors/ enthusiasts I've been trying to popularize the term hormonger, but it hasn't caught on yet.

Could you clarify what it means to "go very far?" I make about that much and live very well in one of Chicago's most expensive neighborhoods.

Too many people fell for it for them all to just be morons, but that's not my point. What I'm saying is that young people will make fall for all sorts of scams if the adults in their life (and government incentives) push them in the wrong direction. Same thing for older generations thinking that things like social security was ever going to be more than a Ponzi scheme (similarly, too many boomers fell for it for me to write them all off as morons).

Getting kids addicted to gambling with virtual currencies might shape the structure of the scams, but the idea that Gen Z is going to be uniquely vulnerable to finance scams doesn't track for me.

Like a five (or even six) figure unsecured and non-discharhable loan given to fresh 18-year-olds for education that often has no market value?

This used to be the case in the United States. As recently as the 70s blue collar laborers owned homes, had families and their wife stayed at home with the kids. The idea that you need two mid to high level incomes to afford a house is very new.

Yes, I'm aware of casinos ties to organized crime. However, they're a lot more above ground these days and the money that was extorted wasn't illegally gained. If you go to a casino on the strip tonight and cheat or steal chips you'll be arrested face felony charges. You won't be taken to an alley and shot or even worked over like you might have 50 years ago. It makes no sense for them to commit serious violent crimes when they can ruin you through 100% legal avenues.

The idea that they're paying because a hit squad is about to drop in, murder them all and get the money back is pure fantasy. If modern casinos figure out who did this they'll forward it to law enforcement. In all likelihood they have no idea, though.

If there's any evidence that these casinos still commit murder like that I'm all ears.

What are you basing this on other than Hollywood movies? Was an example made of the Caesars Palace hackers?

There's no law against it in the US but it's uncommon for practical reasons. It essentially requires you quit immediately and without notice, which is bad practice and will burn bridges in ways merely quitting will not.

Yahoo pool was awesome. Being paired with a random player... a/s/l?

FWIW one of the internet's first viral shock images was proctological and it was very, uh, wide spread...

So there is an audience, they're just not advertiser friendly.

This template would suggest such a release is trivial https://eforms.com/release/medical-hipaa/

In fact I could see an unscrupulous doctor being able to write one vague enough to do it without the person knowing it's going to be in social media. No idea where that would go with ethics boards and such, though.

As a theoretical computer scientist his job was primarily to think and have really good ideas. Thinking at home all day was doing his job...