grammarnazzzi

Meaningful to one's self and principles. In the sense that Viktor Frankl wrote about in "Man's Search for Meaning." Wherein he describes the survivors of the nazi concentration camps were the prisoners who had something personally meaningful to live for. People thrive if they have meaning in their lives.

If you can derive meaning from your career, that's great. Otherwise, family or contributing to society or whatever you think makes a difference in the world and is worth working toward.

Like everything, gaming is great in moderation, but the gamer who does nothing with their life but game is probably going to have some regrets on their deathbed.

> Exactly what is a meaningful life anymore, especially in America?

That's a personal and existental question. What are your principles? What would you like people to say about you at your funeral?

The term "toxic masculinity" creates a subliminal negative association between "male" and "toxicity".

Although you can rationalize the association away, it still exists and influences listeners. It's marketing against men.

If you really wanted to address issues with hyper-agression, you would use the term "hyper-agression", which is gender-neutral.

If you really wanted to address the consequence of not asking for help or compaining, you would perhaps use the term "stoicism", which is gender-neutral.

If you really wanted to address people overly affected by irrational fears, you would use the term "neuroticism", rather than "toxic femininity"

> Women did not create the society that is hurting men emotionally and economically

The extreme elements of 3rd wave feminism has influcenced society in ways that unfairly and negatively impact boys.

Specifically the concept of "toxic masculinity". Toxic people are toxic. Toxic behaviors are toxic. Toxic people should be shamed and toxic behaviors should be discouraged.

Boys should not be shamed for being masculine, and masuclinity should not be discouraged.

Not leading a meaningful life inevitably leads to depression.

That's not to say that a very small few people may somehow find meaning exclusively playing video games. However most people will eventually suffer from lack of self-esteam, low status and shame.

> A person who does nothing with their life when they could be doing something is really a narcissist.

This is not narcissism. This is sloth.

Narcissim is a active behavior/disorder that seeks out positive and negative attention through manipulation.

> I heavily prioritized male investors. Every time a female investor converted, I asked them to help me find male investors.

Does the above statement seem bigoted?

TLDR: The CDC doesn't want to invest time and resources into tracking vaccinated people who test positive for COVID unless they experience serious symptoms.

Critics point out the advantages of greater data collection for studying COVID. The ROI of data collection is subjective and not seriously addressed in the article.

The tone of the article suggests that the CDC isn't doing it's job.

TLDR: Author recommends "A Philosophy of Software Design" over "Clean Code"

>> Writing bots from scratch in a new language is more fun when parsing is easy > Yeah but this is such a niche usecase.

I think the point is that writing anything for anything is simpler, faster, and has fewer dependencies when parsing is easy.

> Also, Matrix uses an HTTP API and almost every language at least has a binding to libcurl.

Certainly there are advantages of using Matrix and it's HTTP compatibility to implement some solutions. However, I can also imagine some projects are best served with a simple protocol with lean libraries that don't incur unnecessary dependencies on HTTP and the related bloat and complexity.

No. They are choosing to steal someone else's trademark

They're defending something they don't own.

Nobody on the face of the Earth would confuse NReal with Unreal.

I don't see how my posting history is relevant to the topic.

It seems like you are resorting to an ad hominem attack to discredit an opinion you don't like.

You are using cancel-culture tactics to defend cancel-culture itself.

I'm not defending the guy. I'm defending the rule of law and due process.

An unsubstantiated accusation should not result in someone's life being ruined.

In her story.

A story that paints him as responsible for everything including her feelings.

Blaming behaviors are a marker of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder.

I'm obviously not qualified to diagnose either party, but a lot of the content of her article blames him for things he's not responsible for and that are completely out of his control.

Furthermore, it seems the worst he's guilty of is being interested in having consensual sex with her. Whereas she's interested in destroying his livelihood and career.

Evidence of what?

I re-read the article to try to figure out what this "specific case" actually might be.

Two people engaged in a consensual physical relations. She was not happy with the outcome.

At the time, she "did not blame him for what happened, and didn't think those behaviors were problematic at the time. ... I maintained friendship with him for a few months after May, because I was convinced that it was all consensual."

So, only months/years later does she decide she's a victim.

She absolves herself of all responsibility ("There was nothing [I did] to cause this"). Yet, she brought wine to dinner with her mentor, drinks until she's hammered while her partner does not drink (Who does that? Other than alcoholics?). Somehow, every decision she makes is his fault.

90% of the article is about her feelings and his responsibility for them. She feels entitled that he show her "remorse, sympathy, and guilt."

She repeatedly accuses him of gaslighting, when it seems more accurate to say they had different recollections or expectations.

She quotes “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” implying he is evil and she is an avenging vigilante.

"I am not trying to convince anyone of anything." This is disingenuous. I think this her way of saying "This is my story, therefore I do not need to provide proof of anything."

"by speaking up, I can take my stolen power back." It's not obvious how her "power" was stolen. Maybe what she really means is, "I feel powerful by destroying his career."

Mature adults learn from uncomfortable experiences and move on. Emotional infants wallow in life-long self-pity and construct elaborate fantasies to support their victimhood.

--

     Any woman.
     Can take down any man.
     At any time.
     With a word.

     - An Empowered Feminist

I'm not blaming her. I'm ignorant of any facts. I'm just saying she doesn't seem to have her head screwed on quite as tight as Accacin suggests.

Accacin suggests that sharing a plausible story is proof of wrongdoing. I don't think so. I'm ignorant. Accacin is ignorant. Everybody on this thread is ignorant of the facts.

I'm saying that Jon Pretty shouldn't have his livelihood and career destroyed by ignorant people and an accuser who admits to having her own set of issues.

The devil is in the details.

Every case is different and should be judged on the merit of testimony of those involved and actual evidence.

Due process and presumption of innocence are good things.

Always believing accusers isn't a good principle. It enables and emboldens abusers not acting in good faith, especially people with narcissistic and borderline personality disorders

Fraternizing and socializing in business relationships is inherently a high risk activity.

Especially for men.

Some people are attracted to abusive mates.

"If a bunch of your ex-girlfriends or ex-boyfriends got together to assassinate your character..." you are probably attracted to extremely destructive relationships. You might be confusing drama with passion.

> This lady seems to have her head screwed on.

I don't agree.

She did not set her boundaries. She did not effectively communicate boundaries. She did not enforce boundaries.

When she doesn't get the outcome she wants, she turns to blame rather than introspection.

> I would love to know what these women stand to gain by humiliating themselves if it is all made up.

narcissism, absolution of responsibility, validation, attention

> This just pretty much does not happen without reason, and I think it is safe to say that if it did, you are probably a terrible person.

Or you associate with or are attracted to terrible people

> it’s just almost like writing a list so it’s not too much work.

But written lists are worthless to people who are illiterate

>If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is?

This is backwards.

You have no control over how other people think, behave or react, let alone how they interpret your words.

Your words can be effective or ineffective conveyors of your thoughts. You are responsible for your words.

Your listeners can be effective or ineffective listeners. They are responsible for their interpretation.

To be productive, you have to use the right tools in a distraction-free environment.

If you want to update one of the synths in a song you are working on, use your workstation.

If you want to procrastinate and waste time, then obsess over using your phone to do something it was never designed to do

The value of CentOS is that it's provides a free and stable RedHat build.

Nobody needs or wants another Fedora.

This seems like a round-a-bout way of killing the only RedHat alternative to the expensive commercial version of RedHat.

If there is no Centos9, I'll probably move over to a Debian alternative. Just because of the principle of the thing. Better that than validate the "acquire and destroy" strategy that seems to be used by every big tech company like IBM, Microsoft, Facebook and Google.

Ooooo. An edgey PSA. Read my "ass" off.

Thanks for the advice. What's your next tip?

> Get Attention: Post Your Ass Off

Who upvotes this nonsense?

Reuters didn't even site the study. :(

GOD WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO JOURNALISM?

Nowhere in the article is there any attempt to define "mental illness" or validate the rigorousness of the study.

Without any objective data or methodology, it's impossible to determine if the study also includes normal and expected outcomes of any hardship like:

* What percentage of the "1-in-5" patients already had contributing factors to the mental illness diagnoses before contracting COVID?

* What percentage of the "1-in-5" patients were diagnosed with "depression" which is a normal and temporary part of the grieving process experienced by otherwise mentally healthy people experiencing hardship?

I'm not trying to minimize or invalidate the situation of anyone suffering from the effects of COVID. I would just like to have a better understanding of the actual risk of interacting with people on a day-to-day basis. The title of this article suggests I have 20% chance of mental illness after being exposed to the virus. Having read the article, I now understand that I have a 0.0000000001% to 20% chance of such an outcome. I feel I've learned nothing, and I regret wasting my time reading it.

Why do companies retain experienced developers instead of hiring ignorant and entitled millennials? Don't employers understand that experience is a liability?