When I am executed for my heartless internet comments, I will take solace in the fact that I was a lowercase-T class traitor.
669 karma · joined August 20, 2014
tl;dr. Said she was born rich. Was actually born to a hairdresser and a con-artist. Really she was rags to riches which is pretty inspirational I think.
American democracy was never meant to benefit just the majority. Which is why we have undemocratic institutions (such as the Judiciary). Minorities (both long-standing and ephemeral -- e.g. a race of people versus the losing party in an election) exist and should be protected from the majority and should be represented in government. Only long-term, widely-held political thoughts can truly dominate minorities in this country.
The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this country and no consensus opinion on how to move forward.
> Although the EU has its own sets of problems, but at the very least seems more representative of the people than the US government.
From an outsiders perspective many aspects of the EU seem undemocratic and ad-hoc. Can you explain your view of the EU to me?
I understand two things about the Salvation Army. They serve the most vulnerable in their community(-ies) and they hold religious beliefs which run against the politics of the day.
That second point may give you some sense of justification. But consider this, on the Salvation Army's website, one of their top line issues is serving LGBTQ community.
That strikes me as odd for an organization described by you as "extremely, violently anti-gay". It seems to me that the Salvation Army is not against an LGBTQ person. They may disagree with their choices but are perfectly happy to alleviate their homelessness, addiction, hunger, poverty, etc.
Are you not able to discern the difference between political disagreement and violence? Are the Salvation Army not the pinnacle of what it means to be tolerant? They're willing to serve those whom they disagree with. In my mind, they're exactly what is required to have a pluralistic society.
A project by a solo, unpaid author should be presumed unmaintained.
> > it's up to you as a developer to vet your dependencies
> This is effectively impossible on an individual level, and it's something that absolutely needs to be a community-level effort.
Don't hire this person... Dependencies are absolutely, FULL STOP, your responsibility. YOU are the one making the money NOT the maintainer.
1). It should be considered RUDE to contact a solo maintainer in any way relating to the project (email, issue, pull request, etc.). You should ALWAYS fork the project and use the forked project on your own terms.
Most people write their projects, on a whim, on a Saturday, for a bit of fun. They do not want to be shackled to a hobby for the rest of their lives.
2). Opening an issue and opening a pull request are IDENTICAL requests for effort.
Think I'm wrong? How many people were so incensed by this renegade maintainer that they FORKED the repo?? Why didn't people FLOCK to the safer fork? Why did people still care about the original repo??? The answer to those questions underlie the fundamental problem of open source. No one wants to do the work. People want to work on what they're passionate about. But they don't want the responsibility of ANOTHER FULL TIME JOB.
An issue is a request to write "native" code. A pull is a request to maintain "foreign" code. I have never had a large, successful open source project. To date, I've had one repo with ONE issue and ONE pull request. Both required more effort than I ever wanted to give.
I have stopped opening issues completely. If a project is maintained by one person, you will never hear from me. Large projects with paid maintainers will receive issues because I believe it the only appropriate time to do so.
---
Here is a simple flow chart for contributing to a solo maintainer's open source project.
1. A problem has been discovered.
2a. I do not know how to solve the problem. -> Move on. Don't reach out to the maintainer in any way.
2b. I can write a fix for this problem but I don't want to maintain this project in its totality. -> Move on. Don't reach out to the maintainer in any way.
2c. I can write a fix for this problem and I want to maintain this project in its totality. -> Fork it. Don't reach out to the maintainer in any way.
My change in weight reflects a change in priorities and habits. Not an inability to maintain.
> If you tell someone they need to eat less to lose weight (which is what almost every diet does) then, yes, it will be hard to maintain.
Why??
> and weigh myself everyday
Why???? Every week AT MOST. And even then, TRACK THE LONG TERM TREND.
> I can't keep food in my house
Why??????????????????
YOU NEED FOOD TO SURVIVE. You need food in your house to PREPARE MEALS that YOU PLAN. A caloric deficit WILL lower your ENERGY LEVELS ... BUT you are NOT REQUIRED to be HUNGRY because of it.
----
Don't listen to me. I'm not your doctor. I'm not your nutritionist.
When I wake up in the morning, I know I can eat one of a couple different meals. I can have oatmeal, or french toast, or pancakes, or greek yogurt. All of these meals are pre-planned so that I know how many calories I will consume. For a snack I can have almonds or a 100 cal ice cream bar or any one of my other foods. For lunch I'll eat a big salad or greek yogurt or maybe some canned salmon/tuna with blah blah blah.
The point is. I don't track my calories because I have a meal PLAN. I don't just jaunt off to a restaurant, """track""" 1500 calories, and say to myself "Welp guess I'm going hungry for the next 12 hours". That's STUPID.
I have anywhere from 400-600 calories for breakfast. 300-400 for lunch. 400-600 for dinner. 400ish dedicated to snacks. That puts me at about 2000 calories for the day. That's maintenance level (basically, it will vary from person to person). To gain weight I ADD another 150-300 calories meal. To lose, I ease up on snacks or go for the low end numbers on my 3 major meals (400+300+400 == 1200 + 400 snacks == 1600 == caloric deficit).
I'm NEVER hungry. The worst part of a diet is the lower energy levels (drink some coffee). NOT THE HUNGER because there is NONE. Eat a pound a spinach. You will not be hungry!
Hard disagree.
As for practicality, weight loss is a function of thermodynamics. Caloric deficit == weight reduction. Doesn't matter your physiology.
As for maintainability, well that certainly depends on how a person is taught to diet. If you tell someone they need to eat less to lose weight (which is what almost every diet does) then, yes, it will be hard to maintain. If you tell someone to eat more (low calorie) food then weight loss is easy.
Most obese, untrained people will very readily drop tons of fat weight with little stimulus.
When I diet (whether the intention is gaining or losing weight) I'm probably eating 2x as much food as an obese person who is wondering to themselves "why is my metabolism so slow?". It's not. The foods I eat just contain less energy than the foods they're eating.
> my book was not an attempt to write the history of Ebola
Calling an accusation "fair" is not the same as admitting the accusation is correct.
It may be fair for the police to suspect you of a crime if you were in the area and match the description. But if you didn't commit the crime then the accusation is not correct.
> Peter Piot who admits he wrote out the African researcher.
> Peter Piot who admits to racism.
> [The article] explicitly provides the views from Peter Piot who admits he wrote out the African researcher and by the way, admits to racism.
Uhhhh.... lol.
A strict reading of the article would reveal that Piot never admits to racism (on his part) and admits to no attempt to "write out Muyembe".
Piot accuses others of being racist (those same others he admitted to harboring resentment for) but without evidence his claims are as valid as Muyembe.
I mean really... how are you going to accuse TWO PEOPLE of racism when you lack the ability to read four sentences.
Browser and search history, email passwords, diaries, and a list of medical professionals that I can contact to vouch for your mental stability should suffice.
We will reach out in the next few days to conduct a character assessment review. Thank you for your cooperation!
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to fill out a form with the Health and Safety Commission offices. Our hours are 10 AM to 3 PM every other Tuesday of every other month.
Remember, your health and safety is important to us.
98% of radioactive waste is "safe" after 40 or so years. After 40 years the radiation is 1/1000th of its initial waste state. The 1,000 - 10,000 year period generally cited is for the radioactive products to decay back to their original ore's radioactive intensity.
> Also, what vectors could these particles enter into food when you consider their lifespan?
Russian FSB.
> Are we really suggesting that the death isn't comparable because it is a long term probabilistic?
Yes. Would you rather die now or have a 10% increased chance of developing a cancer that may or may not be treatable 10 years from now?
I don't mind hydro. I don't particularly like the habitat destruction but they provide tons of clean power and tons of fresh water. But those dams have to be maintained for those 500 years. A collapse of a dam is pretty catastrophic.
You (obviously) can't do this on your own and, at a certain level, the environmental movement's focus on bogus, small-time, feel-good issues reveals its cynicism. BUT PLEASE, stop defending it. You're just empowering those looking for a reason to resent the movement.