Well, since I will also browse Lemmy quite literally “at Work” it makes sense to check the Profile option that blurs the Not Suitable For Work stuff even if having the Show NSFW content also ticked.
Explicitly going back and forth changing the option depending on where you’re accessing Lemmy from is a recipe for mistakes, at best embarassing but, depending on where one works, which can go all the way up to being fired for cause.
It also depends on the sorting used under All.
In my instance you generally need to scroll a lot before finding NSFW stuff when sorting by Top for anything longer than Day.
Ticking the option in user settings to “Show NSFW content” because of scientific curiosity…
You were supposed to have an antenna.
Well, if you tip because you care enough about the person on the other side, you might want to try and come up with a way to leave them a tip somehow so that there is no risk it’s taken away from them, assuming that you can. Put $5 under the rug and let them know, or something.
If you can’t, you can’t, and I’m hardly going to criticize you for not wanting to catch an airborne infectious disease.
I was pretty miffed in the UK (years ago) when it came out that lots of companies (there it was mainly restaurants) were just keeping the tip money when people payed by card and filled-in a tip amount, so I very much made an effort to as much as possible make sure the actual people got the tip directly - even if I stood out from the crowd by doing it - as I don’t see the point in tipping the company.
When I tip the driver in a delivery I literally just give them cash when they deliver (and only if they actually arrive with some promptness, not if they come half an hour late with a cold pizza).
It’s a habit I got into when living in the UK because there, like in the US, lots of companies just take the “tip” money and keep it if you tip whilst paying with card.
Granted, I like to pay stuff with cash, both for privacy reasons and because it has actually been shown that people in average spend less if they pay in cash (something to do with the feeling of giving something physical away), so I almost always have some cash to pay and tip.
Generally no, probably because many males when they end up in physicality make it some kind of dominance thing (playfully violence that’s just a little too much, “higher position” touches like hand on top of shoulder or physically leading other people and even the good old “measuring somebody one the firmeness of their handshake”). It’s not casual and friendly when there’s measuring and testing of others involved.
Outside close family, the only environment I’ve been in were things like hugs were normal was the Theatre world.
Almost 30 years into my career as a software engineer, I’m now making a computer game that takes place in Space and were planets and comets follow Orbital Mechanics, so I’m using stuff I learned at Uni all those years ago in Degree-level Physics, since I went to university to study Physics (though later changed to an EE degree and ended up going to work as a software developer after graduating because that’s what I really liked to do).
I’ve also had opportunity to use stuff I learned in the EE degree for software engineering, the most interesting of which was using my knowledge of microprocessor design during the time I was designing high performance distributed systems for Investment Banks.
(I’ve also used that EE knowledge in making Embedded Systems - because I can do both the hardware and the software sides - though that was just for fun)
Also, pretty much through my career, I would often end up using University-level Mathematics, for example in banking it tended to be stuff like statistics, derivatives and integrals (including numerical approach methods) whilst game-making is heavy on trigonometry, vectors and matrices.
So even though I never formally learned Software Engineering at University, the stuff from the actual STEM degrees I attended (the one were I started - Physics - and the one I ended up graduating in - Electronics Engineering) were actually useful in it, sometimes in surprising ways.
At the very least just the Maths will be the difference between being pretty mediocre or actually knowing what you’re doing in more advanced domains that are heavy users of Technology: I would’ve been pretty lost at making software systems for the business of Equity Derivatives Trading if I didn’t know Statistics, Derivatives, Integrals and Numerical Approach Methods and ditto when making GPU shaders for 3D games if I didn’t know Trigonometry, Vectors and Matrices.
And this is without going into just understanding stuff I hear about but are currently not using, such as Neural Networks which are used in things like ChatGPT, and Statistics are invaluable in punching through most of the “common sense” bullshit spouted by politicians and other people played to deceive the general public.
Absolutely, you can be a coder, even a good one, without degree level education, but for the more advanced stuff you’ll need at least the degree level Maths even if a lot of the rest of your degree will likely be far less useful or useless.
I never said it was excellence, I said it was being a good salesman: never stated that I think salesmanship is some kind of great human quality, or that it is at all a quality or even that it has any kind of moral value positive or negative.
It was never a value statement about salesmanship as a human practice, it was simply an observation about how in my opinion human intelligence relates to proeficiency in that practice.
I think you unwittingly used the context of Society around you and what it tells you are great qualities, to fill the gaps in what I wrote and hence drew moral conclusions from it rather than from my statements which did not at all include a moral judgment.
Further, the possibility that I somehow “leaked” my opinion on it from a moral standpoint is inconsistent with how, personally, I don’t even have a positive opinion about salesmanship in moral terms, though I recognize the rewards it can bring in present day society to be good at it and appreciate a good salesman with the same kind moral-detached respect for expertise as I would appreciate a good conman or a good thief - whether one agrees or disagrees with that kind of job, one cannot but appreciate the smooth elegance of mastery in a complex domain. I can hardly “leak” a positive moral opinion when my opinion on that practice is neutral or slightly below neutral.
(Also, I couldn’t care less about what present day Society tells us are great human qualities, except perhaps that, having to live in it, I have to navigate that crap just like everybody else).
I’m thinking more Startup Founders and highly specialized Tech salespeople, rather than run-of-the-mill salespersons.
People with a grifter kind of personality is maybe a better way to describe the kind of people I mean.
The best do think of themselves as highly capable and competent because the best seller there is absolutelly believes in what they’re pitching - it’s smilar to how in Theatre, the best acting involves the actors literally feeling as if that situation was trully happenning to them.
IMHO the best way to deceive others is to first deceive yourself (though what I’ve seen more commonly done is avoiding knowing too much about something and in too much detail so that one is not even aware of the risks and pitfalls and only knows the positives) because of how amazingly truthfull that makes one sound.
Before or after looking at all his works?
In my experience, the expectations of most people about “gifted” level intelligence seem to be shaped shaped by things like movies and are wholly unrealistic.
Even a twice as fast CPU is no guarantee that the software running in it is any good or appropriate for any one task.
Oh, man, somebody actually thinks the “excellence” part of the curve isn’t plagued by things like how much easier is to spot all the ways things can cause problems down the causality chain (guess what, when it’s easy and natural to, for every action being considered, see 3 or more links down the chain of possible consequences, one always finds risks and negatives) and associated tendency for paralysis by analysis or simply the being quite abnormal compared to most people.
In my experience the perfect spot of the curve when it comes to felling good about oneself in this one human characteristic is to be what I call an “entry level genious” - a barelly into the genious IQ, just about intelligent enough to feel more intelligent than th majority of people one encounters but not so intelligent one is aware of the limits of intelligence and how little even genious adds to one’s overall capabilities (and example of this would be Elon Musk), or in other words, on what is pretty much the peak Dunning-Krugger point of Intelligence.
(All the best salesperson types I’ve worked with were at that sweet-spot: intelligent enough to find it easier to outsmart most people and have high self-confidence but not enough to understand the potential problems and limitations of what they’re selling)
Yes, that’s why it’s a hard choice rather than a simple choice: there is a significant and genuine “now might be the worst time to do this” factor at play, though if you notice there is a “might” in there because that’s still all in the realm of possibility and there are chains of consequence that might mean that the Trump-vs-Biden now will look like the “good old days” in the next election since it it’s a valid scenario that after the lefties vote for a quasi-Nazis-supporter, the next candidate pushed by the DNC will be even worse and the candidate put forward by the Republicans after a Trump defeat is a competent version of Donald Trump - a full-on highly intelligent sociopath that uses the same tools as Trump rather than an incompetent Narcissist which at times is his own worst enemy - an even worse choice than Biden-vs-Trump.
Also the frequent repetition over the years by the Democrats of that same “now is not the time” argument, almost always followed by next time being even worse, makes people suspicious of all the assumptions put forward to support that argument by thos people, and that they’re complete total bollocks just like the last 4 or 5 times those same people made that same argument.
Further, there are multiple paths to “Stop Trump” and the one where Biden shifts leftwards (especially by stopping unwavering support for quasi-Nazis mass murdering children) seems like a far simpler way to achieve that objective than expecting million of people to swallow their “though shall not kill chidren or support those who do it” principles to vote for a guy who keeps on supporting the mass murder of children.
This is not perfectly that Game Theory scenario: the approportioning of representativeness can be changed by the candidate himself after the candidate selection is done, so Fear of losing the election might be enough to achieve some leftwards shift and still guarante that both the DNC and lefties end up winners. In fact, IMHO, that would be the outcome that maximizes the upside for both as a group and possibly the idea scenario give the few real choices than can still be made: the DNC gets his man elected even if he acts a little bit more leftie and the lefties get a little bit more representation.
Everybody going “You have to vote Biden to stop Trump” is making that ideal scenario less likely because they’re decreasing Biden’s (and the DNC’s, who can pressure Biden) Fear of defeat, whilst it’s the people saying “I won’t vote Biden until he starts supporting the unnacceptable” that are making the ideal scenario more likelly.
Yeah those are basically the Scenarios with two big corrections in scenario #2:
As for the DNC not being able to stop a left of center candidate, just look at what they did against Sanders, even before counting the super-candidates which were going to vote against him anyway and override the popular vote. The idea that Obama is in any way, form or shape left of Obama is hilarious for anybody who, like me, was in Finance at the time of the 2008 Crash and had a front row seat to see how exactly Obama unconditionally saved the wealthiest people and made everybody else pay the price - just because the guy is a true political songbird who makes amazing speeches doesn’t mean “the greatest good for the greatest number” - the core principle of the Left - is even in the tinyiest of ways part of his principles. The Clinton-vs-Obama primary was a fight between two kinds of neoliberals that put in opposition two factions within the American Elites, not a fight between somebody representing the average American and somebody representing the Elites.
We don’t know really how bad a Trump presidency will be, though we know for sure just how far to the right are Biden’s principles, but yeah, you are right that a Trump presidency might (it’s all speculation until it actually happens) be incredibly destructive, which is why I pointed out in my comment (last paragraph) that it’s definitelly a risk and people should consider all things in their voting decision.
Personally I think either of them will lead to the death for good of Democracy in America, though doing it via Biden will probably mean it will happen with more steps, but that’s just my opinion based on the trend so far (and, that I expect that a guy who supports what are basically the modern Nazis whilst they mass murder civilians because of being from another etnicity is either a sociopath or an extreme racist and that means he will just as happilly fuck up the lives of Americans - though, no doubt, unlike Trump he will be telling them that’s not what he’s doing - just as as he is right now happilly helping out murdering en mass Palestinians: good people don’t knowingly help others commit mass murder).
I might be wrong on all of this and even if I’m not, not being American or living in America I’m way more isolated and have no real stake on that choice, so I openly admit that I have the priviledge of being able to hold a Thinking Person’s highly intellectual position on this because either way it impacts me very little personally, so I can just analyse the whole situation and point out the broader implications of the voting decision for a leftie and the profound hypocrisy of the Propaganda which tries to deceive people with the idea that it’s a simple consequences free choice, with no real additional risk either way for my own future.
If you chose to eat shit now, you’ll keep on getting served only shit.
This vote is not just a vote on the next president, it’s also a vote for what kind of candidate the DNC will chose for future Presidential Elections.
This is very much a scenario from Game Theory were there are two sides, one side which decides how to approportion something between both (in this case, the DNC choses how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties) whilst the other side can only “accept” or “reject” (i.e. lefties voting of not for a Democrat candidate, leading to a Democrat victory or defeat) and if the second side rejects nobody gets anything (i.e. a Republican President gets elected and the DNC don’t get a guy who mainly represents their interests and the lefties don’t get a guy who represents their interests a tiny bit).
What Game Theory shows us in this kind of scenario is that if it’s a multiple round scenario (in this case, each round is an election, with each time the DNC de facto chosing upfront how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties and lefties chosing to vote or not for him, which often decides the election) if the second side keeps “accepting” no matter how little they get, then the first side will never improve their proposal, and sometimes it will even be worse.
This is actually what you see happen in American politics: only when the lefties refuse to vote Democrat does the DNC, in the subsequent election, chose a slightly more leftie candidate.
The whole idea that lefties should always vote for “better a tiny bit representativeness now than none at all now” and completelly ignore the implications of that for future rounds is an incredibly short-sighted (or maybe self-serving, depending on the real interest of those pushing that idea) ultra-simplification.
Note that this doesn’t mean lefties must “reject” now, it means that they should be considering not just the current round but also subsequent rounds for their accept-vs-reject decision since a “reject” now does mean getting nothing this round (instead of a tiny bit which some will see as too little but others will not) in order to induce the other side to improve their proposals in subsequent rounds, which is a risk.
if YOu’RE Not VOtInG FoR Not MY OppoNENt TheN YOu’rE VoTIng FOr oPPonENt!!!
Even events that happen with perfectly uniform randomness will cause situations were the event happens multiple times in close proximity.
It’s just that we humans just love to see patterns were there are none (and suck at spotting true randomness) and will focus on the purelly coincidental “many of the same within a short time frame” whilst for example ignoring longer than “normal” periods when the event did not happen.
Not saying “doom and gloom posts” have purelly uniform randomness (frankly, I doubt it, as most human stuff tends to have Normal or similar probability distributions), just pointing out that without actually having measured both the events and the non-events, your (and everybody else’s) natural perception will be heavilly skewed by the tendency to notice seemingly unusual patterns of events and assigning them meaning when they might have no meaning at all because pure randomness will on occasion by pure complete chance produce such patterns.
In summary: there might be an explanation, but it can also just be pure chance, so beware of expecting such things to have a reason.
A USB DVD Reader/Writer costs 15 bucks. (I’m too used feel like that meme, and then at some point I needed to find a way to get a Mini-PC to read CDs, and as it turns out it’s quite simple - I reckon it was more a case of “can’t be arsed to do it” than a case of “can’t do it”).