lightgreen

Unless I miss something, this looks like a solution to nonexistent problem?

A reminder that it's OK to not take sides and just support your friends.

It is probably more complicated than that.

Like if you know for sure that a friend of yours did something completely incompatible with your norms (for me that would be for example stealing money from poor old people), perhaps you don't want to have them as your friend anymore.

But if there's doubt and uncertainty and pressure from the community, it's better to support your friends.

I engaged in sexual misconduct with multiple women

The term misconduct is used usually in the work environment when one party is in a position of power, like a boss of another. This is not the case here.

This behavior may imply life long psychological consequence for them.

Or may not. Or maybe refusal to engage with women could imply life long psychological consequence for them: women as well as men feel bad when they are rejected.

Don't decide for women what's best for them. They are grown up adults and engage in these relationships voluntarily.

Yes they are the victims

Victims are those who were assaulted against their will. My understanding that there was no violations like that in this story.

don't be a creep and treat women like human beings and you'll be fine?

You may have your best intentions about women and still slip. Like accidentally calling people "guys" which is considered offensive now.

Everyone does tons of "mistakes" like that. Sometimes it is forgiven, sometimes it is now.

Whether it is forgiven or not often depends not on the exact words or tone of your voice, but on the perception of you. If you are handsome, the reaction will be a giggle. If you not so good, exactly the same words can be considered offensive. https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1663485-hello-human-resource...

The problem is that people gets offended too easily nowadays.

And you advice can be translated as "just be successful young and handsome".

Twitter is completely to blame here

Don't blame knives for killing people, blame people who kill people.

I think the issue here is that Twitter came too quickly into our lives, and people did not have time adapt to the new reality.

Three hundreds years ago people would happily join a mob on a square trying to burn a woman because she is a witch or a traitor or unfaithful. Today people would just tell them they are coo coo and continue with their business.

After a couple of years people will learn to react to Twitter cancelling mob the same.

The opinion of a person with some credibility, like name is N, lives in a city M, occupation is X is valued more than some of anonymous.

Because nowadays there are too many fake accounts, even paid trolls, and talking to them (or even listening to them) is just waste of time, not a meaningful conversation.

My twitter account is anonymous and I sometimes get replies like why would I want to talk to nobody. And they are right, they probably shouldn't.

Poor people indeed often make bad decisions (not necessary financial, but like taking college degree they don't need or staying with their parents until they are 40).

But realistically it's much easier to save money when your income is $10K per months vs when your income is $1K per month.

The UK did a great thing recently: there's semi-mandatory private pension contributions: it is 8% total (you can opt-out, but you need to explicitly do that). So even folks making poor financial discussion will own some wealth.

AFAIK in the US there's no minimum contribution to 401k.

Super rich pay several orders of magnitude more taxes than you (in absolute numbers).

What are you trying to achieve?

This is gross double taxation: they already paid taxes when they earned the money you are investing, and you are suggested taxing them again at high rate.

Do we tax cars? I though we only tax road use, and this tax income goes into road maintenance, not medicine or whatever.

You can create 10 accounts if you think you deserve more votes than others.

I love the modern use of the word “shocked” when used when something slightly unexpected happens. I didn’t take an umbrella and rain started, I was shocked!

It is either inflation of meaning of the words, or infantilism of modern people. And I don’t know what is worse.

since they're low power and generally don't have any moving parts

Rather since they don't have a critical mass/configuration which makes them impossible to explode.

That's what countries and governments are for: people and companies pay taxes so other people and taxes count use the infrastructure.

Amazon pays quite a lot of taxes, directly and indirectly. It creates jobs, improves infrastructure etc.

Anyway, that's offtopic: whether Jess should be in jail because he violated the law and whether someone should pay more taxes are completely different topics.

There's a lot of trust in financial system. A lot of people invest in stocks and store their pensions in 401k.

Does anyone honestly care about a million dollar trade by some employee's husband?

It is not just random million dollars trade. Money are not created out of thin air, money are taken from someone. In this case, money was taken from Amazon shareholders. 0.000001 of each shareholder approximately.

Generally, insider trading hurts trust in financial system, and when it happens unpunished, each american citizen is hurt.

What law they violated? I'm curious, I really don't know.

Great financial advice from a poor guy.

How many politicians were sent to jail for covid insider trading?

What is covid insider trading?

What about the billions Jeff Bezos fleeced in taxes?

I believe Jeff Bezos did no violate the law, but that's really offtopic here.

It's the rich man's world, where justice is only onto the poor.

Tell that to all the rich guys went to jail.

Or if you have some statistical evidence, I'd love to read it.

You have to insider trade a billion so that you’re untouchable.

Some source of that? I believe that is not true. Other shareholders don't really want managers to profit from insider trading.

More correct title would be: algorithm identifies respiratory diseases by the sound of the cough and likely doesn’t make a difference between Covid-19, other coronavirus, or flu.

Rebase is an operation, stgit is a tool. It's apples to oranges.

Kind of.

I actually started with quilt, and when I discovered stgit (many years ago), it was a huge relief.

Does stacked git help with this?

There's no magic in resolving merge conflicts, stgit helps only to some degree.

For example, stgit allows you to not fix all conflicts at once. You have a stack, and you may have first commit in a stack rebased, have a nice usable repo state, and return to rebasing of the second commit tomorrow.

Why would I use Stacked Git rather than Git’s fixup/interactive rebase dance?

Yeah, dance is good analogy. Lot of training, one little mistake and it is ruined.

For example, if you need to introduce a change in commit "one thing" which would require merge conflict resolving in "other thing", with stgit it would be much easier than with fixup/autosquash.

Or another example. You need to put away "other thing" for a while, and work with "one thing" for an hour, and then apply/fix "other thing". Another set of git tricks needed.

But I’m not sure I’d take on a new tool dependency just for that.

If you are happy with git, nobody forces you to.

By the way, you don't have to use stgit all the time. I usually just use git, but when a change in a branch requires changing of previous commit, I simply do: stg init; stg uncommit; stg pop. It's easy to convert local repo state to and from stgit.

I'm extrapolating it from various personal encounters, but I have no data.

Vox doesn't have data either. They are stating that government spends money very inefficiently at homeless and assumes it would be more efficient to hand out homes. This is wrong because:

* government will hand out homes also very inefficiently

* handing out homes might be cheaper than policing homeless people, but it does not guarantee that it fixes homeless problem for reasons I described and for other reasons (like some people might consider declaring themselves homeless to get free apartments)

I'm not saying Vox is wrong, I'm just saying that Vox is correctly writing about different aspect of the issue, but does not explain how to solve homelessness.

Doing fine with ~50mbps WiFi. The issue is not the bandwidth but latency. Check the 99 percentile of ping, should be within ~20ms for comfortable gaming.

I wouldn’t call purchasing games investing.

Personally I don’t care if they pull the plug: it’s unlikely I’d want to play the same game again, and if I do, I have no problem purchasing it again.

Perhaps gamers should stop bending to game developers and platforms until they make the game available on their favorite platform. That’s exactly what I do: I picked a platform, and only play games available on it. Game developers and platforms refusing to publish a game on that platform are loosing my money.