hurril

So of the two alternatives: pay $X for a full subscription or pay $X * 0.2 for a shared one, you are choosing to pay $0 because it is annoying to pay money compared to not paying money?

If it's not good enough to warrant either $X or $X * 0.2, then cancel it. I.e.: Netflix sucks, cancel it!

Y'all are defending not paying while still using said service with arguments that don't support your case.

I stopped pirating stuff a good 15 years ago and Spotify and Netflix are both part of the why. Now, they both kinda suck and I might actually cancel Netflix. But you won't find me on Piratebay for that reason. It's just going to suck for a while.

No, it is not. It's using woke in its actual definition do describe a set of considerations and changes that lots of people don't appreciate.

Compare with: right-wing, left-wing, christian, etc. Woke.

I don't want HBO Max to become right-wing or christian. Or woke.

I understand this and will grant you that. But I'd bet a fair chunk of cash on this password sharing being something other than spouses sharing or running a de facto family account.

I mean: fine, Netflix sux, etc, tt's not worth $X. All fine.

But what's happening here is not that and you all know it. It's easy and cheap to just share passwords. When you do that, you're saying that I should pick up the bill for you. And my answer to you is: tf I'm not! You pay for you, I pay for me.

Fascinating to get downvoted for saying: pay for things you use. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

My salary comes from people that buy product from my employer. What you're saying is that I should work for free for you guys. (No, I do not work at either of the streaming services.)

I can understand the outrage over content, wokeness, the direction, etc. But being angry over having to pay for services rendered? Come on. Don't use Netflix (or the alternatives) as a comfy Piratebay. Get it together, we're not children.

You're making an analogy with something (ChatGPT) that isn't analogous.

ChatGPT kan be useful or useless and NFT:s would have the same value or qualities otherwise.

NFT:s can be useful or useless and ChatGPT would have the same value or qualities otherwise.

The one playbook that exists here is defending NFT:s in lieu of it defending itself by being actually useful. (Which is not me saying that they are not nor that they couldn't be. Just that shouting that everyone is dumb and that your product is in fact awesome isn't a good look, is it?)

That's just a poor attempt at some cheap poisoning the well from you.

The grand difference between the NFT craze and ordinary collecting, is that the latter is not primarily driven by cultish behaviour or the want for Internet Money.

I'm sure NFT, just as crypto, apps and The Internet eventually presents new findings or "just" novel ways of doing stuff. But so far, we have people confused by things _they_ don't understand, setting themselves up for a great loss.

The cultishness in it is the incessant: this is the way. This is new and nothing like this has ever existed before.

When it totally has! Manias and scams have come in all shapes and sizes and will continue to do so.

The reason y'all are buying in to this, is because the sucker's goin' up. Just like with crypto. Just like with dotcom stock and a ton of other things. The fact that there _are_ useful things that came out of the dotcom era, is not a proof of the viability of _your_ mania.

It isn't, though. I recently started learning Rust and've basically been having to teach myself loops again. For over 10 years, I've not constructed a single loop; I've been getting it done by constructing my program with different combinators and recursion instead. And I've not ever felt that what I'd done would have been better with a loop.

It's even very seldomly that I even need if-statements. It's clearly a difference and I really would like to think of myself that I'm not _that_ deep into the cool aid.

This has been done with Scala, F#, Haskell and Elm.

With Rust, not only do loops feel more natural, they're very clearly the right tool.

It's more todo with the interplay between a broken (regulated) rental system and a subsequent need for owning instead of renting.

One idealogical group thinks that if we have artificially low prices on rental properties, then we can have access to cheap living when we need it. But what ends up happening is that people keep these contracts (often renting them out, second hand.) So the regulation actively hinders access to cheap for-rent apartments instead.

This means that all of us have to buy instead of rent, causing a much higher demand in this market.

And the second hand for rent market is also a lot more expensive than the regulated prices to boot.

So no one can afford anything as a result. Without support from huge loans and/ or rich parents and/ or having bought and sold apartments, riding the wave up in prices.

I personally entered late so had to save tons of money and in-debt myself to afford a place. All because one idealogical side has this misguided sense that this regulation somehow exists to help _me_. Me being someone that moved to an urban area for work. Now these same people somehow feel resentment in that I own something expensive that they don't, and that this provides me access to all this printed money. As if I'm not indebted up over my head just to have a decent place to live. It's really stupid.

Sure I can. The one you were just holding. You are relying on the meaning of the concept of having or owning, thinking that you don’t have to either define that or rely on a preexisting definition. Whoops.

Didn't I just talk about the hybrid alternative as the third leg of the actual dichotomy? You might still have the opinion that the office culture won't be the same and maybe not as good, and you're entitled to that. I would have to think about what I think about office cultures to have an opinion on it.

The either/ or dichotomy is still false, however.

That is a false dichotomy. I love working in the office and also really like working from home (or elsewhere, but preferably from home.) It's almost as if there's a third way here; let's just for argument's sake refer to it as a hybrid solution. Wonder if someone has attempted it?

I honestly don't know but I've had it explained to me that it is the acting on said information that would be considered an offence. Either way: if someone were to do this with an ordinary Joe amount of money, nothing would happen. But say you took out a second mortgage and moved $1M - then that could probably be considered suspect. Who knows what that means.

Acting on non-public information is considered insider trading in Sweden. No friendships required for it to be so.

Oh we do. We just don't want to have your shitty newsletter.

Common sense is a dumb term because it tends to mean whatever the person invoking it considers good.

Having worked as a programmer since 1999, I can say that these things were not part of the processes and ideas when I started, at the places I worked. Interpret that any way you want.

I like agile/ scrum/ whatever and what I mean when I invoke those terms, is the list enumerated above.

I dislike the bullshit derivative terms, however. The burn-down charts, estimation poker, story points and all that. (Sure - the poker might trigger a thorough discussion about controversial estimations, so I guess I'll allow it.)

I also really dislike the concept of the daily standup for non-juniors.

A friendly challenge:

Teach yourself 1-2 compound:ish movements per rough muscle group really well. Do 2-3 sets of each, pushing yourself fairly hard. Gtfo.

This never takes more than 30 minutes and with that few movements, there's no queuing for the next piece.

Gym still sucks. Training sucks. I don't love the toothbrush either.

Where's the music coming from? Do you own the music files or are you simply replacing legal music with just not paying for it?

I agree. And we solve things differently, learn from each other, help each other out, but we're not as interested in consensus. I'll help you do it your way because I accept our differences, and embrace them. We don't file down the edges, we handle them. This is the way.

I prefer working alone but it can be even better to work alone, together. Alone together means that there's a deep understanding of the other party and an openness to finding just the right configuration and the best way forward, together.

But too often, people that prefer teamwork, really just want to be heard and receive credit for work done, together. But they're generally not very productive and their opinions not that valuable.

They're also often susceptible to group think in a way that makes them functionally below par. They don't really partake because they're too worried about being caught with the odd perspective or different idea, so they carefully follow the implicit consensus. And nothing was produced that day. Especially nothing novel.

I don't want to work with these people because they _will_ come out of the wood work and pass judgement when you've been caught having a different opinion. And they _will_ pile on.

So I don't hate teamwork. In fact: I love it. But more often than not, we get the mediocrity of consensus and violence towards novelty. Or just differences.

There's also the fact that not everyone can understand things to the same extent. Some people are more intelligent and more competent.

In some groups, this works very well, with others' - there's simply no understanding at all of this.

You are free to dismiss me as the arrogant lone-wolf, but that just isn't accurate.

Some groups imbue consensus with an inflated value. These groups don't take well to differing opinions or alternative perspectives. Especially such that go against a/ the consensus.

This one is nothing short of brilliant:

https://www.manning.com/books/haskell-in-depth

It isn't always clear what that timesaving would be, though. We have to factor in the marginal utility and alternative cost with every- and anything the resources in question thinks about doing (or does.)

Not writing the admin tool might save time in the short term. But as I'm serving you with reports from the database and changes directly in it, I'm not doing other productive work. So you get the reports sooner and the time it takes to give you one is pretty quick.

But that task could have been done by you if you knew SQL. Or a junior programmer. Or by the admin tool.

And I could have spent that time developing customer features (or the admin tool.)

I dunno, man. I'm a (very) volatile person (in this dichotomy) myself and these days I'm aware of it. That wasn't always the case. But it really will piss me off if someone were to static my a$$ about something I really want to do. Now, this is not me saying I should obviously get to do it, this is me confessing to how I would feel about it.

Right. They are paying more for the same thing. This is inflation and it's not something we like. You get less BTC for your money.

Where is the growth?

N% more fast and X times more fast are equivalent.

10% more fast is 1.1 times more fast. 50% more fast is 1.5 times more fast. 100% more fast is 1 times more fast. 200% more fast is 3 times more fast. N% more fast is 1 + N / 100 times more fast. Change factor.

100% more fast is 1 times more fast. This is mellanstadiematte in Sweden. We do this when we are 10-11. I'm guessing you did too.

I understand the point you are making but the problem is that of a conflation and not that of equivalence.

The price of gas is 10% higher this week than last week. A.k.a.: the price this week is 1.1 times the previous week.

I was going 50% faster than my friend was. A.k.a.: my speed was 1.5 times his'.

You were going 100% times faster than me, so you were going twice as fast as I was.

Change factor. 1 + the change / 100.

Something that is 50% faster, is in fact only going half as fast according to you? My car is 1 times faster than yours so it's so much faster that it isn't faster at all. It's just as fast.

It really isn't and it should be trivial to intuit this.

What is 1 times faster? If your interpretation is correct, that's not faster at all. Do you stand by this?

Why is it a good proxy for growth? What do you base that on?

Are you familiar with the term Deflationary Asset?