AnIdiotOnTheNet said a lot of what I'd say, but one thing I'd add is: to lose the ~90 lbs that I did, I had to realize that I would just be hungry for a long time. If I had listened to my normal hunger impulses, I would have kept all of that weight on or gained more, so it meant I had to get really comfortable just being hungry. A lot of meals left me unsatisfied, but eventually your stomach adjusts to the quantity of food you start eating. That doesn't mean, however I didn't get hungry throughout the day. Drinking lots of water and coffee helped in this regard; when it was especially bad, I was drinking a lot more water to keep my mouth busy
One last thing I'll add is that impulse control is 1000x easier with good sleep and the weight seem to come off a little faster when I was well rested
Am I misreading this or are you implying that if people had absolute rights to discriminate in their private interactions that racism would have disappeared on its own?
The way you frame it is only a problem if civil servants are not part of society and that people don't have an influence about what the government spends money on, that is: you don't live in some form a representative democracy. Clearly lots of people value the arts enough to want the government to be funding it. To frame it as some ivory tower conspiracy to get a free ride from the government seems a little disingenuous.
I don't necessarily disagree that there are business models that could support good quality content, or that UBI is a good way to keep arts alive; maybe we could have all three.
To be clear, we're talking about funding of the arts here. Without going down the rabbit hole of debating all of your critiques of the civil servant, if you really have this view of the public sector of the government of the US, then public spending on arts funding is pretty far down the totem pole as far as problems go.
I will say I think your general picture of civil servants as a cabal of lobbyists and special interest does apply to a portion (arguably a disproportionately powerful portion) of them, but the population of civil servants is huge and is definitely not monolithic.
Your comment (and the article) seems to imply that Asian Americans try harder than other immigrant groups and Black people in the United States. Do you think that is a foregone conclusion?
The narrative in the article is that race based admissions replaced meritocratic admission in this case, and the achievements that the Asian American students received were due solely to their hard work. If this is the case, then the obvious conclusion is that the black students (who sat at 2% admission) or the Hispanic students (who sat at 14%) were not hard-working enough, or at the very least, were not as hard working as the Asian American students.
I tend to agree with you; I was pointing out that the comment I replied to was painting a pretty simplistic picture of why the admissions numbers might look the way they do, when in reality it's probably a more complicated picture.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was implying anything about innate characteristics of racial groups. I was trying to point out that the picture the article and the parent comment were painting was too simplistic. In general, I don't think any of those groups try harder than the rest and so saying something like "people shouldn't get butt-hurt over this unless they are willing to put the same time and effort in" is ignoring a lot of what goes into the dynamics at play here.
I don't see how it's a fallacy in this case; this is definitional in the construction of meritocratic admissions: the people admitted have more merit than the ones that are not. OP phrased it as a matter of effort, and I was just making explicit what he left implicit.
Why do functional programming examples always use such short names? I feel like it adds extra cognitive overhead to trying to learn something that's got plenty of foreign concepts to grok.
This line of thinking seems pretty prevalent but the way I see it, there's no such thing as carrying the relationship. If you're the one with the social need, the onus is on you to get that need filled. This generally means doing more work than others but it's not on behalf of them. It would be nice if other people filled our needs for us, but that's generally just wishful thinking.
I don't have 100% control of my coworkers or library writers. Knowing whether a library or a coworker can hand me back an optional value seems like a pretty basic thing for a language to tell you
I understand why devs choose Electron and the benefits seems worth it overall and I'm glad it exists (and as you point out, a video editor might be an especially appropriate application for electron). That being said, it has a cost, and part of that cost is that there are certain users who don't like the experience of using electron apps. You may not agree with how big a deal this is for them, but the tone of this seems to be that they are wrong for having that preference. As a dev you don't really get to decide what users do and don't like; it's of course your prerogative to make whatever tradeoffs you wish, but I'd be careful about denying people's experience of your software.
I'm not speaking of anything specific. Clearly enough people dislike the experience enough to avoid using apps based on it altogether. That's not my view or experience of electron apps broadly, but I'm single user on a specific setup. My point is less about specific criticisms of electron and more about the fact that dismissing people's experiences with it doesn't really do anything to win those folks over.
> Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision.
Yes this guy was left in absolute shambles by the woke mob
I grew up in a family of laborers and this feels very far from my experience. Can you do this through your 50s? Yes, if you avoid a major injury (your risk of this is high in these jobs). Even if you do avoid injury, your ability to do the jobs starts to rapidly decline because doing a job like this day in and day out does take a toll on your body, even if a single day of work isn't back breaking.
1st party doesn't mean "part of the system", it means built by the same people who make the OS. I said nothing about purity. I'd argue people's preference for "stock" Android have nothing to do with purity; they just have a preference for the apps google makes for Android because they like the experience better. Android has always had the capability to switch your default app, but there is a subset of people who prefer the stock experience. I don't know why that has to be some sort of cult like obedience rather than a rational choice
But Pixel is the 1st party google experience, and that's what those people are looking for. I'd hazard a guess they don't care about what default applications are in AOSP.
Vaccines on a population level are less risky than the illnesses they prevent and generally reduce death and healthcare costs to society. This is true of both the flu and COVID vaccines. There's a nonzero chance that you'll feel worse with the vaccine than with the illness, there's also a nonzero chance that:a) someone else getting a vaccine has helped you not get sick and b) having gotten the vaccine could prevent serious harm in the case of illness. You can bet against those outcomes but your odds get worse and worse as you get older.
I'm a person who has vacillated between being close to normal weight and obese. I think people who don't have problems controlling their diet tend to underestimate just how hard it can be to eat at a calorie deficit or even just maintenance when you've lost a large amount of weight. When I'm at my lowest weight I literally am thinking about food constantly and my maintenance calorie intake drops to about 1500-1800 calories.
You say this as if it has not already proven to be a barrier. That is to say: it's already preventing adoption, whether you think it's a good reason or not.
Most of the people I know that pursue relationships for purely pragmatic reasons and fail seem to forget that people won't fit into boxes because you want put them there. The people I see that are successful meet people where they are, and let their positions in their life reveal itself as they get to know the other person. I don't know if this applies to you or is even helpful, but it is a pattern I have noticed in my life.
I'm not sure what you mean by pseudo arranged marriages. I mean successful at building new interpersonal relationships in general, and generally that translates into more opportunity for romantic relationships.
The point of bringing it up is because one of the natural questions is "why did we stop doing controlled burns?". If you don't address this, people will think there was a good reason when, in this case, it doesn't seem like there was.
No true Scotsman argument aside, anti-competitive practices by very powerful firms are a bad thing, even if the firm got the market power because they have or had the best product.
Regardless of what you see as an exaggeration on his part, the evidence is he's referring to is surely better than the individual anecdote of the parent post.
One last thing I'll add is that impulse control is 1000x easier with good sleep and the weight seem to come off a little faster when I was well rested