115 karma · joined May 14, 2014
Search hasn't been neutral or stable in a very long time, although I agree it has been pretending to be those things.
What a great way to unite the world in a practice of cruelty to its inhabitants
- 1worldforhumansonlyflag - 1worldindifferenttosufferingflag
The whole idea falls flat on its face because of this for me.
- For league play, the scoring hands change every year!
- an ambulance will not be dispatched unless you physically witness someone trying to kill themselves
- otherwise, they send the police
- the police arrive without training and severely escalate the situation
- the person having an emergency will be taken into custody and stripped of rights until being medically evaluated (not arrested)
This is the program of an allegedly progressive state. After 2 experiences like this, adding trauma to already traumatic situations, I would never recommend these hotlines.
Backend is zig, frontend is in Flutter. First foray into zig and I'm really enjoying it.
- https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mame-sama-%E3%81%BE%E3%82%81%E...
- https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mamesama&h...
It’s totally fucked.
My Japanese, on the other hand, isn't fluent, but I'm able to tap into way more emotion. It feels as if I'm singing when I nail a great sentence in nihongo. It really lands with the listener and I feel emotionally connected in that moment.
Could this be related to the increased brain activity required for foreign language?
Surely that's simpler than specifying those conditions before every call to show this dialog, resulting in plenty of duplicated code. And if those conditions change, there is only one place I need to update it.
Of course I can make a single operation to check those conditions like "shouldShowReminder", but that too is doubling the surface area of this code.
I see the merit of the argument here but disagree with the absolutist stance against "maybe" functions.
This is the only example referenced of which I know its origins. However it illustrates an issue with names that have no connection to the science of birds. The naming as tribute was surely transactional in some way (to curry favor perhaps) and really should be replaced.
If that's the clinical standard, why didn't the cited paper use it that way? From the research paper:
> autistic individuals
> autistic employees
> autistic participants
The peer reviewed research paper uses this standard. Only using "with" in reference to diagnoses.
It is "Science Daily", a news site, who skirts the standard by changing the paper's wording.