I care about my friends, and if they want to talk about it, I’m happy to listen.
Depending on what the thing is (eg, potential new person) they can be inherently interesting too.
I care about my friends, and if they want to talk about it, I’m happy to listen.
Depending on what the thing is (eg, potential new person) they can be inherently interesting too.
The Tarot of the Bohemians.
I think it’s fairly parochial, and sounds quite infantile to me. Growing up (uk) we just used clockwise to tighten.
“I love life on Earth… but I love capitalism more.”
That was my, admittedly bitter, point, yes. You do have to wonder what the hell weretcollectively playing at.
We live in a world of plenty where we still produce enough food that nobody need go hungry.
It does make me wonder about quantum suicide.
The Sixth Sense.
The beeb. Interviewees were both pro-Israeli and representatives of different Palastinian groups; what could not be distinguished between them was the playground line of blaming the other for their own behaviour.
In the days following the October attacks, the media was filled with spokespeople repeatedly delivering the line, “look what they made us do”.
It comes to the same conclusion regarding the illegality of the weapons, even if it’s pretty lenient in its interpretation of how thousands of devices can be “reasonably expected” to all end up in the hands of combatants.
You’ve linked into it, but I was just going to point at the Git book: https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2
It’s an afternoon’s reading; it does an excellent job of giving you the right mental model - and a crib aheet of commands to navigate it.
“Maybe our friend doesn’t like monads.”
That’s not how legal jurisdiction works in the EU. Member states are still sovereign; if you’re liable for something in France and you get off a plane in Germany then France still needs to ask Germany nicely, and sans an extraditable conviction nothing is likely to come of it.
He’s not smart enough. More like the Grand Negus.
Experience. For what it’s worth, the instinct I distrust is absolutism.
I think it’s like the distinction between art and obscenity; it’s not a nuanced distinction in the case in question. If it were, I’d largely trust UK courts to get it right (they are by-and-large capable of this, and much less politicised than their US counterparts).
I’m coming around to it.
I think unqualified freedom to say anything can lead to negative utility, pragmatically speaking. Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.
I’m concerned that the libel system can be abused, of course; and I don’t approve of arresting octogenerians under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for shouting “nonsense!” at Jack Straw. But I don’t see there being a need to draw a distinction between online and in person speech, and I think that incitement to riot isn’t something I’d typically defend.
Having said that: I hope the woman in question (who has a history of being a deniable pot-stirrer) gets a trial rather than copping a plea, because the bounds of these things are worth testing.
I’m a mathematician too. They’re probably speaking from an intuitive grasp of utility.