GavinMcG

35 ms·

391.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
Aside from the keyboard issues, you're talking about design choices you don't like , not design flaws . They made the choices they made, and by and large executed on them at a high degree of quality.
392.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
The point I think OP was making is that you can say anything with a reasonable evidentiary basis in a complaint. (And some lawyers don't bother with the evidentiary basis part—see the post-election lawsuits that are being sanctioned fo
393.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
"Hypocritical" seems like the wrong word to describe caring about multiple things that are sometimes incompatible.
394.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
"Context" or "Topic" might be a better name that conveys the use. "Tag" is technical and I always fail to use tags because I don't think of how I'll be helped by them in the future.
395.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
I like this one: https://thisrecipedoesnotexist.com/58969 With wonderful instructions including: - 1 banana - peeled, pitted and sliced - Beat 2 tablespoons peach preserves into peach preserves. - Cool and continue baking
396.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
When you say "central thesis" and "confounds" it sounds like you think this is a piece where the author is setting out to prove something. What, though? It seems to me this is an exploration that's meant to be helpf
397.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
It's a rhetorical statement, not a logical one. Koans aren't logical either: they're meant to prompt inquiry.
398.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
> So many words for mere conjecture Yes, this is what's known as a "personal essay". There's some research citations, too, because the author is a researcher who has worked in this area, but if you're expecting a
399.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
No, it's not. Neither is minor speeding, for example. It's a lack of care and awareness about the consequences of one's actions - hardly a desire for those consequences. You say "active" and the whole point is that
400.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
I'm not sure why people keep equating carelessness with actual malice. Yes, obviously both the boss and the enforcer are bad for doing harmful things with an evil mind . That's just not the same as apathy.
401.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
Well, no, you can bet if I hate my employer and therefore destroy people's stuff, that stuff is getting destroyed . Tossing a cardboard box just doesn't do much the majority of the time.
402.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
It's not about being disgruntled, it's about not wanting your family to go hungry because you were only able to deliver three hundred packages in ten hours by taking extra care. There's a difference between destroying som
403.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
No, you're mixing up necessary and sufficient. This being a definitive demonstration doesn't make it the only definitive reason to accept climate change - there was already plenty of good-enough evidence.
404.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
Yes, "agreed...to settle the case" tells us what's going on there. Without such language, we'd be left with the default understanding. As in the headline.
405.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
Yes, both of those would correct the default interpretation of the term. For one thing, damages as something paid for isn't the same as damages paid . You pay money, you don't pay for money. On the other hand, if you pay for
406.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
Yes, where the context is a settlement offer. You'll notice it refers to a "claim for damages", i.e. the claim that would be made in court, but will not be if settled instead. In the headline, on the other hand, there's
407.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
And in situations where the law isn't involved, that's great. Here, though, it is. Talking about damages being paid , as the headline does, is especially indicative of the legal context.
408.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
Damages is a legal term of art that implies a finding of fault in a judicial proceeding and a corresponding award by the court/arbitrator/etc. This is not that: no fault/guilt need be admitted (though it was here). It'
409.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
A practical understanding of the country's political messaging isn't the same thing as free-market ideology. I'm not especially free-market, but I recognize that poor messaging gets picked up by Fox News (for example) who bea
410.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
It's unwise to rely exclusively on anything, but if I'm going to devote half my waking hours to something, I'd better be able to rely on it to provide more than just money to spend on the other half.
411.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
It is serious. Just pointing out a way that someone could think there's room for narrowing the definition. Obviously any suicidal ideation may need help; categories that aren't totally clear can just make it harder to decide what
412.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
Hospitalization is generally mandated for any expression of an immediate intent to kill one's self, even if there isn't an attempt at all. So there is a line-drawing problem; if someone says they tried to kill themselves even if
413.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
If your cynicism were correct SOPA and PIPA would be law. They aren't.
414.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
I don't mind a specific discussion. I react with negativity to two things: the expectation that the next step in the conversation can't happen without some fleshed-out perfected proposal, and the demand for someone else to come
415.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
It's not the be-all-end-all but it's also not a knee-jerk thought. Legislation (and government) is how we solve the collective action problem . That's what it's there for. Sure, individual developers should stop deployi
416.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
The government can't possibly put out perfect legislation in every area, no. But it's ridiculous to assume that everything is inherently corrupted and that there's never any hope. I mean, sure, if every member of Congress
417.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
The knee-jerk reaction that writing good legislation is just too hard seems to always come up. But it's harmful. We don't need to have model language ready to ship just to be allowed to discuss whether an individual or collectiv
418.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
So you're making an argument against the concept of respecting someone's requested pronouns, because it's "not difficult for you to imagine" a situation where you would "feel silly" even though you've
419.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
Well, not at the point where you say "she" instead of "he". The fact that you can come up with a ridiculous example doesn't mean the actual request is ridiculous.
420.
by GavinMcG 5y ago
> The debate is not about whether somebody can use a pronoun. It sort of is, though: someone's use of a pronoun only exists to the extent that others refer to them that way. My pronouns for myself are I/me/mine. Your

More ›