Ma8ee

Maybe that’s the problem. Everyone knows that abstractions are desirable, and encapsulates as much as they can, and ends up with redirection hell without any of the advantages of true abstractions. If people understood what the word actually means, we might not be in this mess.

You can only do the “what” with clearer code. The “why” needs some documentation. Even if it is obvious what the strange conditionals do, someone needs to have written down that this particular code is there because the special exemption from important tariffs of cigarettes due to the trade agreement between Serbia and Tunis that was valid between the years years 1992 and 2007.

I’m not the one you asked, but I rely heavily on the Apple’s Reminders app.

No, the right seems to very happy with elitism and connections.

> Result is negative. If you swap the variables, you have to imagine the area is a negative area

And why is that a problem? Just reverse the equation before and after the proof.

(a^2 - b^2) = -(b^2 - a^2)

use the same visual proof but with a and b switched to get

-(b + a)(b - a) = (a + b)(a - b)

You are not swapping the values, you are swapping the names.

I think Steve Jobs et al were in control of their emotions. I’m quite certain those explosions were controlled to achieve some certain effects.

> ...presumably not "purpose"?

That was already very clear. But you clearly don't have any better suggestion.

What is the “correct” word?

Detected != measured. A good manager has no problem to evaluate and manage situations even if they can't put numbers on what is happening.

As you point out, there are several valid reasons to subsidise farming. But then subsidise farming, not carbon emissions! And while you are at it, use those subsidies to encourage farming that is sustainable, both for the climate as well as biodiversity.

Not the future, but the domain.

That is how I do it too. I don’t have time for much dedicated exercise with a full time job and two small kids, but cycling allows me to get a decent amount of exercise every day while saving both time and money. (And about time, if you work in a city and have less than a 10 km commute, cycling is almost always faster during rush hour. )

I’d expect the fleshy parts to leave at least some ashes.

Cryptocurrencies use between 0.6% and 2.3% of all electricity in the US [O]. I guess those manga are very important to you.

It would be order of magnitude more efficient to send couriers with cash to pay for those instead.

[0] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61364

Is it the sentences "There are so preciously few places like Earth. How I wish more of us cared about it." you are referring to. In that case it should be obvious even to you that "it", referred to Earth. How did you get from that to "protectors of the universe"?

> Also you're utterly wrong, most times the arguments are that...

Oh, those show up too. But it is the people who pretend that they actually belong to the thinking crowd who comes up with the your part.

It goes like this: There's no climate change. We didn't cause it. It won't be too bad. It's too expensive to do anything about it now. The world will be fine either way, with or without us.

We are aware. AI at least have the potential to create some value, which can’t be said about crypto currencies that still waste enormous resources.

> not having these visions of grandure about us as some protectors of the universe

Uh? Where did that come from?

> is all rationalization on your part

It's not rationalisation. But as all moral statements they are subjective, in the same way as the fact that you don't want your spouse or kids to die doesn't rest on some objective hard facts about the universe.

And meaning can't exist without creatures like us, so we are absolutely free to bestow it to whatever we want.

> I don't then use this fun thought experiments to justify not recycling or denying human impacting climate change if that was what put you off.

But for some reason this is the exact argument that comes up every time someone mentions that maybe we shouldn't fuck up our world. It's neither thoughtful nor original.

I can't help find such edgy cynism nothing else than juvenile. Yeah, sure, in the end nothing matters and the universe doesn't give a fuck about you.

And life on earth is just an accident, and that intelligence and consciousness exists here for a very brief time on the universe's path to heath death doesn't matter at all. Except of us poor conscious beings who find joy in being alive and actually have the capacity to marvel, because it is marvellous that we can, and we should.

And I care that it is us who inhabits the earth, and not slugs.

Anything that reminds me that we are living in an environment thin as an eggshell on a grain of sand surrounded by an infinite cold and deadly vacuum, punctuated by hellfires that would evaporate our hole planet if we got to close.

There are so preciously few places like Earth. How I wish more of us cared about it.

It depends on what kind of book it is. Fiction EPUB all day. Technical books with figures, tables or code listings, PDF!

I guess the only thing you do is work and invest all money you earn, since ROI is apparently the only thing that matter.

What are you going to do with all that money when you die?

Why do you think so?

It requires significantly less energy than producing new glass. The reasons glass isn't recycled more than it is in the US are political and educational. Many European countries recycle 90% of the glass.

> Environmentalists are pissed wind turbines kill birds.

Those are not environmentalist, but people who are trying to find any excuses to oppose renewable energy. Environmentalists know that wind turbines kill a fraction of the numbers of birds killed by things like house cats or power lines.

Glass bottles are still reused in big parts of the world, and millions of tons of glass is recycled every year. So clearly some people think it is worth it.

It’s a very big different between “can’t be recycled” and “can’t be recycled endlessly”. If the fibers can be used 5 times, it means that we can reduce the numbers of trees that have to be chopped down by 80%.

Not very much. I rarely buy beverages in anything else than aluminium, glass or cardboard. For some food stuff, like meat, cheese and some vegetables I think it is hard to get rid of plastics completely, but you can easily reduce the amount by 80%-90%.

That one is a bit complex. Recycling things like paper, metal and glass works very well, in particular if they are sorted at the source. Most plastics can’t be recycled cost effective, which a lot of plastics producers have work very hard to hide.