my_hat_stinks

Most people think they’re middle class and it’s easy to punch down, that’s really all there is to it.

When I was young I remember asking my parents “are we rich or poor?” and I was told we were middle class, it stands out because at the time I didn’t know what that meant. Looking back we were absolutely working class. We were in one of the worst parts of the city and literally just the corner was a street well known for gang violence and crime. The one time I called the cops after being attacked there when they arrived they made sure they were parked in view of security cameras and even called to have sure the cameras were on then and working. Also the only “help” they have was telling me to do it because it wasn’t worth the effort.
We were only slightly better off than everyone else living there, we actually owned our home when many of them were in council housing.

Fly’s graveyard?

Brine pools, it’s much saltier water which doesn’t mix with the water around it.

Queer is a reclaimed umbrella term for any non-cis or non-hetero relationship. If two men were in a relationship they might consider themselves queer. It’s not really a word you’d ascribe to other people, it’s self-descriptive.

A man and woman in a relationship is a hetero relationship, if one or both are trans or gender non-confirming they may consider themselves queer. It’s with noting that a hetero relationship does not necessarily mean they’re straight either, bi or pan people often date the opposite gender.

I wouldn’t normally consider a non-monogamous relationship queer by default, otherwise anyone who cheats would be queer.

Since it’s a reclaimed slur the best move is to not use it at all unless the person you’re talking about has made it clear they’re comfortable being described that way by you.

No you didn’t. You only said that a company that can’t afford “25/hr” would be unable to hire people at that rate. Plus an offhand comment about how some people working full time “cannot be justified” earning a living wage, that’s the point you seemingly want to make but just stating something isn’t an explanation.

You have to account for these cases in your rules.

Why? They can’t afford an employee. They shouldn’t hire one.

and trans women aren’t real women

That wasn’t to stir up controversy, that’s just Rowling being a piece of shit. She regularly supports groups aiming to strip rights from people and has openly stated that any money from Harry Potter is a direct endorsement of her abhorrent views. The only ethical move is to boycott anything related to the franchise.

Am I misreading this or are their arguments all complete nonsense? From what I can see in the article they have:

1. They have to allow third-party headphones, i.e. the anti-monopoly policy prevents a monopoly.

Among the requirements of the DMA is that Apple ensures that headphones made by other brands will work with iPhones. It said this has been a block on it releasing its live translation service in the EU as it allows rival companies to access data from conversations, creating a privacy problem.

2. Other companies will “twist laws” to prevent competition, i.e. exactly what Apple is trying to do by removing regulation. I don’t see any way to interpret this other than an outright lie, anti-monopoly policies encourage competition.

Apple said that under the DMA, “instead of competing by innovating, already successful companies are twisting the law to suit their own agendas – to collect more data from EU citizens, or to get Apple’s technology for free”.

3. Porn exists? I don’t even know what they’re trying to say with this one?

It said that rules under the act affected the way it provided users access to apps. “Pornography apps are available on iPhone from other marketplaces – apps we’ve never allowed on the App Store because of the risks they create, especially for children,” it said.

Final Destination?

dumb enough to think that something you just thought of without any research is valid and also dumb enough to think sharing that online is a good idea.

Do you know what community you’re posting in?

You can disagree with someone without being an ass, this was uncalled for.

You mean like all the things in the link OP posted which you scrolled past just to be an ass in the comments?

So your suggestion is instead of any attempt at regulation people should just boycott a company years after they’ve already given that company their money, despite the fact that you admit n even more ideal circumstances boycotts still do not work?

The entire premise of your comment is absurd, but let’s assume for a moment we really do live in a world where a legal process can’t be used unless it’s successfully been used for widespread change before; what other action do you suggest people should take?

Plenty of words mean the opposite of themselves, so much so that there’s multiple words for it; autoantonym, contranym, or Janus words.

This morning my alarm went off so I turned it off.
I wanted to buy a new console as soon as it was out but they were all out.
Two people were left so I left.
I fought with Bob over chores, but I fought with Bob in the war.

Sort of, but but really. You’re right that historically the daylight hours set an upper limit on the amount of work that can be done per week for most types of work, but that limit is far higher than 8 hours per day over 5 days. The 40 hour work week is based on unions fighting for a 40 hour work week. If it wasn’t for the unions you’d be working all day every day except Sunday, for religious reasons.

That might change over the next few decades too, the current fight is for a 4 day work week and studies are showing promising results there.

I think you’re misrepresenting that a little. It’s not peer reviewed, doesn’t appear to have any researchers names attached at all, doesn’t mention latent demand, and doesn’t at any point consider that there could be other modes of transport. It reads to me like someone trying to sell their road building project.

The question reads like an XY problem, they describe DB functions for data structures so unless there’s some specific reason they can’t use a DB that’s the right answer. A “spreadsheet for data structures” describes a relational database.

But they need rectangular structure. How do they work on tree structures, like OP has asked?

Relationships. You don’t dump all your data in a single table. Take for instance the following sample JSON:

  "users": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "name": "Alice",
      "email": "alice@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "The Witcher 3",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.8
              },
              {
                "name": "PS4",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["RPG", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Minecraft",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2011,
                "rating": 9.2
              },
              {
                "name": "Xbox One",
                "release_year": 2014,
                "rating": 9.0
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sandbox", "Survival"]
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "name": "Bob",
      "email": "bob@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "Fortnite",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.6
              },
              {
                "name": "PS5",
                "release_year": 2020,
                "rating": 8.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Battle Royale", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Rocket League",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 8.8
              },
              {
                "name": "Switch",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.9
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sports", "Action"]
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

You’d structure that in SQL tables something like this:

The dbo.favorites table handles the many-to-many relationship between users and games; users can have as many favourite games as they want, and multiple users can have the same favourite game. The dbo.platforms handles one-to-many relationships; each record in this table represents a single release, but each game can have multiple releases on different platforms.

Usually no, unless I’ve left a reply disagreeing then someone else comes along and downvotes them, makes me look like an ass who downvotes anyone I disagree with. I also check my own comments to see if people agree with me but I’ll keep the comment up either way, if I do change my mind I’d rather leave a new comment or add stuff in an edit.

It’s not too difficult to bot votes on lemmy so they’re even more pointless than they are on reddit.

Aphantasia is a spectrum, but even when you can visualise a full realistic scene it should be easy for most people to tell the difference between that and seeing something physically. When you can’t tell the difference that’s a hallucination.

It’s only total aphantasia if you can’t visualise an image in your mind at all. I believe then you’d get more a concept of an apple than an image or other depiction of an apple but that’s only my understanding from hearing other people talking about it.

This specific case isn’t really to do with the evolution of language, more just ineffective linguistic prescriptivism. Some guy 200 years ago decided they didn’t like how “less” had been used for the past millennium so they made up a guideline for what the preferred (like what you just said) then people decided to treat that as an actual rule. Obviously it’s still common to use “less” that way even after a couple of centuries of people trying to enforce that rule, it’s a good demonstration of how prescriptivism is a waste of time.

Strangely enough, in my experience many prescriptivists who rely on etymological arguments are fine with language changing for this one rule. Makes me think they never really did care about historic usage of a word.