I think I’d still argue the free open source part is inherently left wing. Why would I, a right wing libertarian, lend my time to developing a piece of software that I am unable to make a profit from? I have no motive.
Something like bitcoin is the kind of tech project of that mould that i think attracts the right wing libertarian. Just my opinion though.
Eh, there’s plenty of educated right wingers. Not fascists as much, but the kind of fiscally conservative economists who preach austerity are often as not highly educated, just lacking in empathy.
The philosophy behind FOSS is inherently left wing and anarchist; communities working together to provide and produce tools for the common good, without a profit motive. Coupled with the lack of advertising and promotion of the sites, people have to seek them out, leading to a self-selecting user population that skews left :)
No, do (when young, and when old you can use it to make miso)
Dryad’s saddle, also known as Pheasant back mushroom :)
Now I want to try making corn bread with cider
You can use a spoiler tag instead of nsfw for the same effect :)
FUCKING DOING OUR JOB AS TRANSPORT MODELLERS AND DOING A FUCKING COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO GET FUCKING MODE SHIFT FROM RURAL USERS UNLESS YOU RUN A FUCKING METRO STYLE 10 MINUTELY SERVICE WHICH IS FUCKING UNFEASIBLE WITH THE FUCKING RESOURCES WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
IN THE FUCKING UK WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF FUCKING ABANDONED RAILWAYS FROM THE PERIOD OF FUCKING COAL MINING THAT WOULDN’T HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE FUCKING DEMAND NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY SETTING UP AN EXPENSIVE AS FUCK SIGNALLING SYSTEM TO BRING THEM UP TO MODERN FUCKING SAFETY STANDARDS, ALONGSIDE REPLACING THE FUCKING RAILS, SLEEPERS AND BEDS.
IF INSTEAD YOU CAN HAVE A FUCKING PUBLICALLY OWNED FLEET OF FUCKING ELECTRIC ‘MINI TRAINS’ THAT PEOPLE COULD USE FOR INFREQUENT BUT NECESSARY TRIPS, THAT COULD REMOVE A FUCKING SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO MODE SHIFT, WHICH WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING RAD
My therapist tells me to close down all but the part of the position where I have an advantage, so that I can build pressure before making my break.
Writing it out,
Bxd8 Bxf2
Ke2 (only move) Bg4#
Since the king is in check and the light squared bishop covers f3, the dark squared bishop covers e1 and e3, the knight covers d2 and f2, and the rest are blocked by white’s pieces
Not only that, but Bxd8 Bb4 allows c3 and white survives.
I disagree with your sentiment, and think the examples work. If your aim was to run a coffee shop forever and you quit, then yes you have failed. If, on the other hand, your aim is to enjoy and have the experience of running a coffee shop, then doing so for two years and stopping is a success. Similarly with a relationship. You can have succeeded in having a mutually fulfilling relationship that you both have happy memories from, even if you then grow apart. It succeeded in its aims of spending time enjoying being a relationship.
Holy shit. That seems so helpful
I use it to scrape up all the stuff once I’ve chopped it. Chop onion, use spine of blade to scrape onto this, dump in pot. Saves lifting heavy chopping board, or scraping onto thin knife.
Just move to the UK. This is the norm.
Inability to take a compliment is tied to the general cultural dislike of ‘people who get above themselves’. Arrogance is the cardinal sin, and so in receiving a compliment you either a) accept it (meaning you agree with them that you’re great, which is a sign of arrogance!) or b) deny it (false modesty! A sign of even greater arrogance!). The only acceptable response is to sputter and turn red with embarrassment.
I agree, and am in favour of decriminalisation of marijuana, but I will present the argument against as I think it’s more nuanced than some people will make out.
Alcohol is a substance that is indelibly intertwined with our culture and rituals. Our socialising at bars, pubs and clubs; our celebrations (champagne!); and our meals (taking a bottle of wine to dinner with friends). Marijuana, by contrast, is in the UK a relatively new introduction. It doesn’t currently serve the same social function.
If each were to do the same level of damage and carry the same risk, it wouldn’t make sense to spend your political capital trying to ban alcohol (look at how prohibition turned out!) as it’s simply too deeply ingrained in our culture to try. But you could seek to prevent marijuana from reaching the same level of cultural necessity through stigma and criminalisation.
From a public health perspective, this would make sense; less cost to health services from related health conditions. So you don’t decriminalise, and at the same time take reasonable steps to try to reduce the harm to public health caused by alcohol.
Where I think this argument falls down is in the criminalising aspect. Does it truly prevent weed from reaching that status, and are your disincentives targeting the right people? To me it seems far more sensible to treat people as adults and educate them on the health risks of both alcohol and the devil’s lettuce.
My personal sign off is :)
Non binary pawns pog
White resigns.