Check out a lock like this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07DR9CMGZ
Mount it near the top of the door, out of reach of the small escape artist.
I had exactly the same problem and this solved it.
663 karma · joined October 18, 2009
Mount it near the top of the door, out of reach of the small escape artist.
I had exactly the same problem and this solved it.
And I wonder whether they're incentivized to care. In either cases above, my money is still green and smells like money, and makes the same number go up in their quarterly sales goal dashboard.
My point, and I gather the point of the Banksy quote, is that any one instance has a negligible effect on me, but that in aggregate I'm stuck staring down the barrel of a machine that has infinite stamina and resources that's attempting to wear me down, and is likely succeeding in ways I can't detect, nor have the power to detect if I wanted to.
If being exposed to this aggregate process all day makes me less patient with my family at night, to what degree is it worth it? If it makes me less willing to treat someone else with kindness, is it still justified if it's only a _little_ less willing?
No single advertiser is literally laughing at me while doing the backstroke across their vault full of money, but none of them needs to have such overtly malicious intent for the aggregate effect of the entire system on me to be just as corrosive.
To be clear I'm not saying any one advertiser is directly attempting to demean any particular person into buying their particular product, because clearly this isn't a winning strategy. It's the dose that makes the poison, however.
If one person walks up to me on the street and says "I've got some shirts that would make you look really slim" I would shrug it off as a weird happening. When the second person say "I used to look large, but this brand really made the pounds seem less obvious", I think it's been an odd day. When this continues to happen over the course of the month, perhaps I begin to think I'm looking a bit large around the middle.
Taken in isolation, no one instance is going to break me. Taken together, over a lifetime? That could change my own perception of myself in ways I can't even begin to estimate.
We take it for granted that living with an emotionally-abusive person deeply affects someone's sense of self-perception, but for some reason when advertisers use the same sort of tactics, but at a slightly lower level spread across a greater amount of time, we're supposed to accept it as appropriate?
We all have a finite store of, let's call it "self confidence"; why should we accept as status quo that all comers have a right to drain some of it every day in order to line their own pocketbooks?
1) Growing up in a house with low water pressure. If the machine doesn't have much pressure to work with, it seems to do a bad job more or less regardless of what you try to do
2) Given you have sufficient water pressure, using cheap detergent. After switching to a "top of the line" dishwasher detergent packet, a dishwasher went from "borderline useless" to "more clean than I can get them by hand".
Number 2 was by _far_ the most impactful thing I've done; I can essentially now scrape dishes of large food chunks then put them straight in the dishwasher, and have a >= 98% confidence they'll come out completely clean.
If you could do so, JSON.stringify/parse would be a convenient way to do a deep clone.
The biggest gain over Arch for me is the safety net it gives you in making configuration changes. Once I've got the machine working, that state can be booted to for as long as I care to keep its pointer around. This means things like kernel upgrades are no longer the anxiety-inducing problem they used to be on Arch for me; if an upgrade fails, I can quickly reboot to the previous state without having to do anything special.
As a result of this, I no longer need to put off kernel upgrades when I'm trying to get something time-sensitive done! To be fair, I was running the ZFS-enabled Arch kernel, which was the cause of most of my problems. However, using the ZFS kernel on NixOS has been anything _but_ problematic; it just works, and keeps working!
Nix/NixOS also makes setting up a new machine just the way I like it a joy. If I move to another machine, need to build a new one, or need to re-image the current one for any reason, my configuration (stored in source control) follows me around without me having to remember all the one-off tweaks I did to make, say, hibernation work correctly.
I haven't yet mastered building packages since I don't find myself needing to compile things from source all that often, but I can certainly feel the pain of learning how to do so; it still feels like quite a mountain to climb before I'd really know what I was doing.
This abstracts out all the reify stuff and makes for far cleaner component definitions.
I managed to go over my handlebars while riding down a quiet side street (with no hands, like a badass :/ ), when a gust of wind blew me sideways and caused me to overcorrect and crash.
The Lord protected me on that one and gave me a chance to be a bit more proactive :)
As far as looking like a parenthesis layer cake, that's part of the Lisp "tradition", really. One can look at is as the price you pay for true homoiconicity and powerful macros.
I can only imagine people don't try and affect change for the same reasons they don't try and affect change in politics at large, namely that the issue seems so large that they can't see themselves making any headway against a seemingly advancing tide.
What would be the reason to do it this way if you don't already have the FSA?
If you just need to hash a small-ish set of known items and keep memory usage low, I'd think starting with the table would make more sense. Wouldn't the FSA approach require more memory than the table, since it has to maintain all the intermediate nodes?
This sounds like the justification of every grey-area business idea I've ever heard.
Specifically: https://github.com/arclanguage/anarki/blob/master/lib/how-to...
Here's the subset of regular expressions that has gotten me through nearly all of the regular expressions I've ever needed to write. As a plus, it has no dependencies!
* - zero or more of the preceding character/group
+ - one or more of the preceding character/group
? - zero or one of the preceding character/group
$ - end of line
^ - beginning of line
. - one of any one character
\ - escape the following character (for a literal '$' or '.', for example)
[<some characters>] - one of the given characters
[a-zA-Z0-9] - letters and numbers inside a group can have ranges!
(<something>) - capturing group (anything that matches inside it will be accessible in the match object)
<thing1>|<thing2> - either the first thing, or the second thing (or the third, or the fourth...)
This isn't a complete, or even precise, definition, but knowing those things will get you to the point where you can read and write expressions like this:
^(-|+)?[0-9]*\.[0-9]+$
which matches things like -.2, 0.123, +0.1, etc. (floating point numbers, basically). This likely has bugs, since I haven't tested it ;)