baddox

37 ms·

361.
by baddox 6y ago
> It doesn’t work like that. A lot of the networks’s and Netflix’s breakout shows were not planned to be great. That might be true for a lot of breakout shows, but not all of them. House of Cards was arguably Netflix' first breakout
362.
by baddox 6y ago
What currently stops landlords from raising rents such that no renter has any disposable income? Surely my landlord isn’t simply convinced that I am paying them every cent that I could possibly afford to pay them.
363.
by baddox 6y ago
I just don’t think the specific way to do each operation in the UI is an essential part of Blender. Anyone using it professionally or even as a serious hobby will pick up on UI changes quickly. The real work you do on Blender is the actual
364.
by baddox 6y ago
What’s so undesirable about teaching some technology in school and that technology changing over the years? Heck, I took computer hardware vocational classes in high school, and we learned about ISA, ATA, and PCMCIA. I would never bemoan e
365.
by baddox 6y ago
Some of the previous anniversary links are 404s. :)
366.
by baddox 6y ago
After seeing this headline I was just thinking it would be a lot of fun to dive back into Linux 15 years after I was last a desktop Linux user. It would be fun to try Linux From Scratch, or Gentoo if that’s still a thing. Then I realized I
367.
by baddox 6y ago
The US military has an active conscription program at their disposal.
368.
by baddox 6y ago
Do you really think that more people would die if the US military went on strike? Besides, the US military already has a mechanism to force people to work for the military.
369.
by baddox 6y ago
The army already has top-down centralized control, right? Much more so than most big organizations. Clearly the army can already choose whether to participate in wars or not, that's what they do. They don't even need to lobby to c
370.
by baddox 6y ago
> This makes sense since you don't want the military going on strike. What’s unique here? Isn’t the whole point of all strikes that the employer doesn’t want the employees to go on strike?
371.
by baddox 6y ago
The point of unions is to attempt to counter the immense imbalance of power between employers and employees that often exists. That can certainly exist with public jobs just like it can with private jobs.
372.
by baddox 6y ago
> because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status Yes, the point is there is a specific law that says this, and it&#x27
373.
by baddox 6y ago
Are you suggesting that tech or corporate culture now is more discriminatory in its hiring practices than it was 10 years ago?
374.
by baddox 6y ago
I think that both the New Yorker reporter and Alexander know that deleting the blog will not meaningfully impede people from accessing it who want to access it. I think that the reporter's claim that deleting it might impede people loo
375.
by baddox 6y ago
I never said anything about consistency. I'm talking about your claim that the article is "ugly."
376.
by baddox 6y ago
I don't understand. Publishing his name in the NYT will surely already cause any of his patients who read that to realize it's an article about their doctor. Surely that's where the interference would come from ("whoa, m
377.
by baddox 6y ago
> The reporter can't actually believe that Alexander is trying to hide something horrible that he wrote It might be a little farfetched, but no moreso than Alexander's own reasoning for deleting the blog. I think it's a li
378.
by baddox 6y ago
Surely a scan through the NYT is also not largely condemnations of individuals.
379.
by baddox 6y ago
That seems at best a very narrow sense of "doxxing." If his name is for all practical purposes already public, and he just does not want readers of a specific newspaper to see his name mentioned, does that really count as "do
380.
by baddox 6y ago
It seems to me that the level of "privateness" of the information is relevant. Obviously just saying the real name of a famous person who goes by a pseudonym is not considered doxxing. This article claims that his full name "
381.
by baddox 6y ago
It seems to me that simplifying the entire Scott Aaronson affair was necessary, since it was just a brief part of this article. I thought their choice of simplification was reasonable and in good faith, but of course others might disagree (
382.
by baddox 6y ago
Doesn't that also mean the very act of "deleting" the blog is disingenuous? If deleting the blog doesn't meaningfully impede accessing the blog articles, then what's the point, other than drawing attention to the si
383.
by baddox 6y ago
They are literally prescribing who is and isn’t serious about fitness based on clearly irrelevant things like whether one uses a fitness app.
384.
by baddox 6y ago
The commenter is, as is so common for fitness, explicitly and proudly gatekeeping. There’s a reason people new to fitness are embarrassed to go to gyms. It’s because they know that so many “fitness people” are like that. Luckily, not all ar
385.
by baddox 6y ago
I just don't really buy it. I imagine those people back then were also complaining about how the kids these days don't care enough to communicate properly. https://xkcd.com/1227/
386.
by baddox 6y ago
That's the first time I've seen that guideline. It seems like the "too common to be interesting" principle would apply to an enormous amount of comments here.
387.
by baddox 6y ago
Don't you suppose that letters also contained a lot of garbage and propaganda? I don't think we are generating less primary source material now that will be usable by future historians.
388.
by baddox 6y ago
But wasn't the alternative in the past just less data and fewer people with power to create preserved data?
389.
by baddox 6y ago
LGBTQ+ content is not limited to that.
390.
by baddox 6y ago
A lot of Christian worship music is also copyrighted, and churches pay for licenses.

More ›