Are those words actually weighted with the assumption you are making, or are you just trying to feel better about 800 million people going hungry? The nuance between English words aren’t really apparent in poverty statistics. Because I doubt there was a survey where they all agreed it wasn’t enough, but just enough that aripickar doesn’t feel as bad about 800 million going hungry.
I meant that there was a group of people the size of the population of brazil that were expected to be hungry, but are not. That should be celebrated. Its easy to lose the sheer size of the difference between 800 million and 1 billion, but in reality thats a huge difference.
Again, its very easy to cherry-pick statistics, and point at a big number and say "oh this is great we helped people". True, but if you didn't actually fix the root cause it doesn't mean much. Contextually for ~30 years the number has stayed pretty stable, despite 2 billion in growth. So we clearly are capable of producing tons of new food, but we're pretty bad at managing that growth - or by the numbers the extra 1.9 billion we managed to feed would have more than covered the billion gap, no?
There was a great tweet/meme about people savaging the idea of bailing out the arts industry during a pandemic, all while spending more and more time reading news sites, playing games and watching TV/movies online...
You can pick up most of the soft skills you learn in humanities by doing things like reading and practicing writing. The minimum functional skill level is low enough for a majority of people to achieve through practice with minimal guidance.
People don't have to spend thousands of dollars and four years of their life to paint or sculpt or whatever - it may not be proficient and lifelike but it'll still be art.
Your world wouldn't be all that much more drab if we stopped forcing engineers to learn "culture".
> People don't have to spend thousands of dollars and four years of their life to paint or sculpt or whatever - it may not be proficient and lifelike but it'll still be art.
I don't think it's important to the overall argument of your comment, but this is incredibly reductive. If one has little appreciation for a particular form of art maybe this is true, but if, for example, all orchestras or other classical music ensembles were comprised of less proficient musicians I'd sooner stop listening to classical music altogether.
> Your world wouldn't be all that much more drab if we stopped forcing engineers to learn "culture".
I'm not sure if it was your intention, but quoting the word culture comes off as disparaging, but given the tone of your comment it certainly seems so.
I think I would've agreed with you if you'd simply said "engineers shouldn't be forced to take humanities in higher education; doing so is largely ineffective, at least in terms of imparting cultural appreciation and other related soft skills." Instead, I can't help but read it and think that it's single-minded and tone-deaf.
I think what OP meant was closer to "if it could have been entered into the bash history than there's other ways it could be seen".
Most CLI programs that need sensetive information as input should either do it interactively (a la sudo), as standard input, or configuration file. If worst comes to very worst, you can put the sensitive info in a text file and use backticks. For example:
Most of HN is shitting on popular things with a hot take and a smug condescending tone, usually erroneously. If Conical hadn’t tried new projects and failed, the poster would complain that they never innovate.
People complain like this because they have no real control of their own lives. It makes them feel smart, if only they were in control, then things would be better. It would be so easy, the people in charge must be stupid. It comes from a lack of experience and the inability to understand the challenges in those positions.
The shortcomings of snap are well documented. I assumed anyone reading the comments would have been aware of them. But apparently some people will jump on any chance to virtue-signal.
The opposing side to RTFM is for you to just “Answer the fucking question”. I don't have issue with people that didn’t read or understand, but I do have issue with your RTFA nonsense. What does this add? Far less value than a question that everyone seems to want to know...
Thanks for bringing it up. An underlying assumption here is that cordiality should be the default, and I agree with that.
In this particular case, though, this question is essentially "TL;DR?", which is also a question everyone wants to know, but not considered good etiquette by this community.
The question was "Is there a reason the author uses the word dish instead of project?" If the answer is yes, then, you can find out by reading the article. If the answer is no, then a comment critiquing or clarifying would be helpful.
I could have been more cordial, but it's unsustainable (IMO) to counter low-effort with high-effort. Acting annoyed is a convenient shortcut for communicating etiquette expectations.
There are plenty of good reasons to start to read the article, not quite understand the usage, and come to the comments for clarification. I don’t assume, if I’m not following, that reading more will clear up the confusion. If those reasons exist, as they plausibly do, then how do you ensure you aren’t erroneous, and making an inaccessible community.
Interesting, I did _not_ know the reference (I'm a SWE, not in scientific community), and I thought it was a clickbait headline. Obviously this differs from the person above me ^ who clicked the link _because_ of the reference.
Just perspective, and I'm very happy to know the reference now.
It’s less the obscurity, and more that to a layman, you are saying in the title that modelling doesn't work, or it really doesn’t work. Understanding your audience and all that. Someone should write an article about it so we aren’t misrepresenting our point by trying to be clever and assume the layman understands that which has not been explained to them...
This is not only about people who disable js, but also about people with disabilities who would benefit from accessibility features on your app. With this arguement, we should also ignore them, since they might not be the ones making the most traffic i.e. revenue for us.
There is also the increasing number of users who disable trackes out of privacy concerns. At lease most of the marketing guys I've seen still assume what trackers show is all there is.
I’m not saying it should be that way on purpose, I’m saying that’s what you can expect. No one tests for people using terminal browsers or IE4. Noscript users are in the same niche. I understand why you’d disable JavaScript but I don’t understand how people expect those who make web apps to cater for that.
You can expect all you want, I expect you’ll be disappointed. The goal to keep the web in that languid state is of the same ilk of the buggy whip. It’ll have archaic use cases, but the numbers won’t make sense for a lot of if not most future endeavours.
Inaccessible sites as in doesn’t work with screen readers and similar? You can make websites using js and still conform to accessibility standards (wcag etc). Just like you can make inaccessible websites without js.
There's nuance to each of the terms. Asocial is what I would say an introvert often is; avoids social interaction without necessarily wishing ill, perhaps dislikes being in the company of others. Anti-social behaviour is disruptive to others, perhaps violent.
Maybe it's a US vs British English thing, but I definitely associate "anti-social" with meaning disruptive to society (e.g. Anti-social behaviour orders in the UK [1])
Upon saying that, "asocial" doesn't really sound right to me. I'd probably go with "non-social" or maybe more poetically use "misanthropic".
