NilMostChill

9 ms·

31.
by NilMostChill 1y ago
A possible solution, perhaps, but i personally wouldn't consider it a good one. I can full stack dev, i choose not to because i don't like the current state of the front end ecosystem but that's a preference not a limitation.
32.
by NilMostChill 1y ago
and usually in a context where the concept they are thinking of (the constitution) doesn't apply (anywhere that isn't the government)
33.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
indeed, this particular one though has the added complication of having part of it's meaning contained in the composition of the word. It's usage is still changing, obviously , but for me it's a more difficult transition bec
34.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
I think that rather than a fundamental misunderstanding this is more of a fundamentally different outlook between us. I understand the draw of seeing 'value' as a metric by which to judge things but i don't generally take tha
35.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
Ah, that makes sense. As i alluded to in my post i don't think it has hit the hyperbolic numbers provided in the original post. I suspect they will be hit in the short-ish term 1-3 years, but these kinds of things are notoriously diffi
36.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
So given you didn't address any other part of the reply am i to assume you agree ? Future consequences and poor outcomes based on current day incompetence and mismanagement ? To address your reply: If you don't know the phrase &qu
37.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
https://www.wired.com/story/doge-rebuild-social-security-adm... Though I'm counting that as future potential costs and deaths. Ignoring the obvious opinion of the author, anybody who has ever worked on any sort of
38.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
I suspect that's by design. For the same reason some department stores have the up and down stairs/escalators on opposite sides. https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/49307/why-do-departme...
39.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
Voting population. I'm not just being pedantic, it's an important distinction.
40.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
Simple answer, profit, line must go up. If it makes financial sense in the future to pull shenanigans with book access or content, they will do so unreservedly and with haste. They have done this already in small amounts, no reason to think
41.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
The difference is most of those things aren't built with tangible, perpetual representations in mind. For literally all of the time that the written word has existed, if you bought a physical copy it was yours for whatever version of p
42.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
Same for rabidly supporting him.
43.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
I disagree with almost all of that. I'm not sure I've said anything that would indicate that i am , but I'm not from the US. > Families torn apart because of how they vote That's reductive in my opinion, I'd cons
44.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
This seems like you're trying to say that you'll leave if you continue seeing things you don't agree with. That's 100% allowed, i'd personally encourage it, if you find yourself in a place you don't enjoy, stop
45.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
I would read that as "I'm specifically excluding talking points and discussion on ethics in this subject and focusing solely on the talking point at hand" That doesn't generally mean they have an ethical take, just that
46.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
The person i was replying to was claiming that bluesky opinions were somehow worse than x, i was wondering what metric they were using. They've ve deleted it now, I'm assuming because they didn't have a position they felt the
47.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
What metric are you using for the comparison of x vs bluesky ?
48.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc
49.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
i like this term
50.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
depends on the subject matter. If it's something i have no grounding in then understanding the authors' potential biases is useful. If it's something I'm relatively familiar with or close enough that i think I'll be
51.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
GDPR enforcement is bullshit because it was made by people who don't know what they are doing and didn't understand how much effort would be needed to actually prove there is a problem. Honestly, same could be said for this one, i
52.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
> Might the author be overreacting a bit to this new law As i have read it, no, it's worth a read to see for yourself though. > it doesn't put that much of an onerous demand on forum operators. It doesn't until it does
53.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
> I think work is supposed to be hard and tiring I suppose that depends on what kind of work you are talking about and your perspective on what different kinds of work really are. I wouldn't consider "The thing i do so me and m
54.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
That's evidence of environmental factors.
55.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
I've clearly stated what my interpretation was, with an explanation of how i got there. A single line explaining how "people vs nature" doesn't imply that people and nature are different things would have cleared this up
56.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
> The other person understood me just fine, and also noticed how obvious my statement was, and how you avoided it. Of a sample size of two that's a 50% failure rate. You stated an us vs them, i pointed out that drawing an us vs them
57.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
> Hey and you were wrong. You are pretty bad at understanding what other people are saying. Or you are bad at conveying an explicit meaning. > It wasn't related because the other person was correct in that you misunderstood my st
58.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
I was referring to the leaves in this case but i agree with what you are saying.
59.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
Technically yes and that confusion is exactly my point.
60.
by NilMostChill 2y ago
> No it isn’t. Yes, it is. > You know what they meant. I have clearly stated what i think they meant. They specifically said "disadvantages compared to us." that heavily implies ( if not outright declares ) an us vs them. It

More ›