axotty

Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.

God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament. Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in. I sometimes believe in a creator who, for the purposes of familiarity, I call God.

"Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?

Yeah, that is what I meant. I will change that, thanks.

The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?

I don't personally believe the scriptures are anything but contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction, so I cannot answer your question.

"Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?

Of course, I am. I can only maybe accept that there was a creator. Everything else is just pure speculation. I'd like to think that this creator is unfathomable to mankind. That being said, I often doubt that this creator exists at all.

By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?

Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong. If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell.

Either way, I'm willing to take that risk.

I was on Safari on iOS, it didn't appear until the end of the article.

It is when your name is identical to the co-Founder's name. It's link-baity by the fact that many people were baited into clicking that link under false pretenses.

I'm not accusing this Wozniak of malice, however.

I didn't look at the TLD I just clicked. I thought Woz was ditching OS X, I got excited. I was baited.

I definitely clicked and read the entire article only because I thought it was written by Woz. I agree, it is link-baity and misleading.

EDIT: Holy down votes. Don't know what to say. I thought it was Woz, sosume. All I did was agree with the less-downvoted parent.

EDIT 2: Hive mind crit axotty for 9999.

Disclaimer: This is my personal belief, it seems it seems to offended some passionate dissenters. I understand, I've been there before too.

God is often depicted as moody and chronically concerned with what we think of him. I think that's a ridiculous projection of our own human insecurities.

If a creator like God existed, he would be billions of orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Why would he care if we were skeptical? Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything. I doubt God, if he existed, would stop loving me even if I hated him. He would be above all that, in my view.

If there is a creator or God, I personally believe he doesn't care if we believe in him. He's too intelligent and mature for that to ever matter to him

Side note edit: It has always been interesting to me that moderate agnosticism is always the most drowned out religious view. I would be better off as a militant atheist or familiar, friendly theist if I cared about internet points.

If God exists, I doubt he cares if we beleive in him or not. I like to beleive he would not be that insecure.

This has happened to me during every OS X upgrade/reinstallation I can remember. The first time, I also assumed that it just wasn't working. I've since learned that the 99% is deceiving in terms of the expectations it might give you. You just have to be patient and it'll eventually work.

Yes, I've read it. It's not a very good book, in my opinion.

The end of your second point fails to address the comment you responded to, I was addressing an entirely separate issue about how this community (and to a lesser degree, the programming community) chooses to communicate. Specifically, how it fails to actually remove flaming, trolling, rudeness, and arrogance. It merely wraps these things nicely in pseudo intellectual packages.

Anyways, I wasn't defending my (purely spiteful) "ageist" comment, nor do I intend to. Although, I keep getting baited to address it, so here I am. Rest assured though, while I may never transform into a different gender or race, I will certainly age. I'm sure one day, when I'm older, someone on the internet will say a rude, politically incorrect comment towards me, and I shall weep with regret and understanding.

Yes, and then there's that sweet spot you find when you're walking the fine line between being polite and being patronizing. That perfectly guised condescension with a rich aroma of political correctness that still delivers the intentional underlying message.

That's the real skill to master, especially amongst the smug closeted egomaniacs in the programming world. But as a normally blunt person, it all seems a little silly(and very insincere) to me.

Point taken. At risk of being further downmodded, I have to say that I don't consider myself to be very graceful. I'm not sure how much I can change that (I find fake personalities exhausting).

However, the way you phrased your criticism was very polite, yet firm. It drove your point home in a self evident kind of way. It's got me thinking and I appreciate that.

it's somewhat hilarious for me to read someone musing that maybe they should "learn enterprise".

I'm actually still in school. So, I tend to muse over learning a lot of different things. Your life story was really neat though ;)

History is bound to repeat itself... What you say almost makes me want to learn enterprise.

"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."

Am I the only weirdo who just uses multiple workspaces with ctrl-arrow and cmd-tab like a mad man? I genuinely enjoy it, especially with a second monitor.

I, maybe, have one or two apps sharing a single workspace. Most apps are in full screen.

Great response. I lol'd at the people from Vulcan bit. Your points about the change of perspective death offers are very true and insightful.

I have nothing to add other than I really enjoyed reading this and felt compelled to comment. It upped my mood :) Keep up the positive outlook (sometimes rare on this site) and have a great day.

This is fraud. Do not do this.

This would be a great resource for an advanced second grader.

We've come full circle to my original reply to you. If you are going to learn to touch type you are starting from zero with QWERTY anyways so using a new layout wouldn't add any additional time.

there are literally thousands of things you can do that will be much more useful than learning to touch type dvorak.

You could say this about any skill or hobby. You are not the arbiter of usefulness. Plenty of people have derived utility from learning to touch type Dvorak or Colemak. You're writing them off out of pure ignorance.

I think you misunderstood me. I never claimed anything like that. In fact I suggested most of the benefits of touch typing are not related to programming.

That being said, you will never know the benefits of touch typing if you can't touch type. You seem to be threatened by the thought of it being a valuable skill so I won't try to convince you otherwise.

It's takes a trivial amount of time to set up these layouts on most machines.

I agree that good typing skills do not necessarily make you a more productive programmer. But I do find that it is a skill that compliments other programming skills nicely. It's also nice for countless other parts of my workflow that do not include programming.

If you're already a decent QWERTY typist I agree it is a waste of time to learn a new keyboard layout.

But if you're hunt a peck QWERTY typist who decides to pick up touch typing, choosing an ergonomic layout like Dvorak or Colemak makes sense. You're essentially staring from zero anyways so you're not wasting much time on the layout anymore so than you would on the QWERTY layout.

This way, you retain your two-finger QWERTY skills while learning a layout that minimizes the odds of developing RSI.

This is DHH's take on Yishan's resignation via Twitter. He seems to be heavily implying that this was not a voluntary resignation.

DHH: Reddit CEO's forced uprooting of employees outside SF got full board support, but moving one BART stop? YOU'RE FIRED

DHH: @andrewstepner No CEO is ever fired. Everyone always "voluntarily" resigns, whether that's actually the case or not.

DHH: "Yeah, just force those families to uproot their whole life. Give them a week. Ok, two.", then, "want US to travel 20 mins longer? NO, NO".

https://twitter.com/dhh

Wow. I can't even begin to express how much the premise behind this series resonates with me. I've been looking for something just like this.

My only issue is that, although in C, the preview/introduction video seems pretty centered around visual studio[0]. In the FAQ you say that multi platform support for *nix systems will be added later.

How exactly will this work for those of us who want to follow along, but don't have Windows?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ntGDm6hOs

You seem to have missed the point. And I'll let you have the last word if want. I will say this though:

There is no universal right to smoke. Smoking harms others and provides no benefit to anyone other than people who suffer nicotine addictions.

Furthermore, smoking bans are bar none the most effective way to reduce public harm from second hand smoke. They indeed "actually work".

EDIT: And to your other response I did mean "the right to continue their addiction." Thank you for pointing that out.

Tobacco use is scientifically an addiction[0]. It is not merely classified as one. So your concerns are baseless.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence

Society has to answer these questions by weighing the rights being curtailed for one party vs. the rights being protected for the other party

I encourage you to read my post about externalities. I believe you would find the arguments from the economics perspective interesting.

I've always thought that outright indoor smoking bans are a gross in-balance of non-smoker's rights vs. smokers and property owner's rights.

Is smoking really an autonomous behavior? It is a common behavioral symptoms associated with a nicotine addiction.

Should people with uncontrollable addictions have rights outside of the right to treatment? I'm not so sure...

Tobacco smoking might be the only drug that causes unavoidable physical harm to non users.

I think imposing mandatory licensing (with fees) of indoor smoking establishments that ensure proper ventilation for the protection of employees and other tenants is the reasonable solution.

The WHO has suggested that solutions through engineering, such as improved ventilation, are ineffective at reducing the unsolicited harm (or social costs) that non smokers have to incur.

http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf

I believe you are confusing the government's right to regulate behavior with the government's right to regulate negative externalities[0] caused by certain behaviors.

I would argue in that in the case of smoking, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests the activity harms others around you. Therefore, the public has the right to regulate the negative externality that this activity creates -- needless physical harm to others. The regulation of this activity creates virtually zero new negative externalities and is therefore justified.

This is in contrast to the other behavioral regulations you mentioned such as gay marriage, feeding the homeless, or even other drugs. The supposed negative externalities these activities produce have been viewed with more skepticism by the general public in recent years.

For example, the argument that gay marriage would somehow harm the way certain children were raised, has been mostly debunked. If sufficient evidence to the contrary would arise, evidence that was comparable to the quality of the evidence for second hand smoke, then the public would be justified in reevaluating the issue.

Fortunately, from a civil rights perspective, this is not the case.

In the case of non-smokable drugs you have to consider how much harm drug use causes vs. drug prohibition. It becomes clear that the negative externalities from the latter are much larger in scope and scale. Therefore, a conversation in ending drug prohibition is justified.

So, I would argue that whether or not a regulation on feeding the homeless is justified depends on the scope and scale of the negative externalities the activity creates, vs the scope and scale of negative externalities the regulation itself may or may not create.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Thanks. I see what you're saying and I think you're right. The point you were originally making about causation vs correlation is more clear to me now. I guess I'm guilty of letting myself get too excited over what worked for me.

I have an anecdote I feel like sharing. Please take it with a grain of... you know.

I've had hypertension since I was 17, but I never got on medication. I recently made the decision to completely give up added salt. I only ate my own salt-free cooking for about 6 months and I ate a diet high in meat, fish and vegetables. I did not pick up exercise. My BP dropped from 145/90 to 125/80 within the first month. I check my BP weekly and my average BP is 120/75.

My parents cook with a lot of salt, I notice this now when I eat at their place. I am confident that the high salt diet they "gave" me for so many years, combined with restaurant food, was the direct cause of my 5 year strugle with high blood pressure.

I could be wrong, but I am nonetheless very happy with the results of my diet based solution.

So the 2007 version of the iPod refused to work with some random 3rd party software you had, and you've sworn off all Apple products for life?

That's just childish. Not only can companies change but one product doesn't necessarily reflect everything a company has to offer. You should stop being such an ideologue and learn to use the best tool for the job. Which is sometimes an Apple product.