the_jesus_villa

Is it really the norm to twist the cookies apart and lick the frosting, like in the commercials? I eat them whole, two at a time, like a pig. Well, that's when I do eat them. I haven't had oreos in many years now.

Mostly about my programmable calculator when I was in prison, hope this is interesting to someone else!

This article links to another called "PHP Sucks", which is a broken link - that's the third time I've run into that same broken link this week. I guess it's destiny that I go and read it for real.

Luckily, it's a Github Pages page (of the old kind, before the transition to .io domains) and is still on the user's GH Pages repo: https://github.com/nikic/nikic.github.com/blob/master/_posts...

Not answering your question but Patricia Lockwood (one of my favorite authors) wrote a very amusing memoir called Priestdaddy about growing up with a father who was a Catholic priest (having converted from Anglicanism I believe). The book also doesn't really answer your question, but it's fantastic despite the awful name.

Sorry, but... you'll just have to wait for the next Substack post! ;)

>Is this really the bookstore's fault?

No, not at all. Like, this morning, my hair looked wild, so my wife teased me about it. It merits teasing, not because the hair was my fault, but just because it was funny looking.

Similarly, I'm making fun of B&N for an aesthetic flaw, not a moral one.

>If you think a corporation is evil, you don’t have to shop there.

I don't think charging $80 is evil, but it's a high enough price to merit some light teasing. To clarify: I'm just making fun of B&N for charging a lot for a book I wanted. This isn't meant to argue that charging a lot justifies theft.

>If you think a corporation is evil, you don’t have to shop there.

This is a more interesting argument, that has nothing to do with what I said, but is still fun to think about. Surely, if a corporation is evil, a reasonable response would exceed "don't shop there".

>It’s about how you framed and excused your behavior.

No need for excuses whatsoever - if someone on here has a stolen book they want to gift me, I'll accept it with no shame or guilt. The joke wasn't meant to be an excuse, but for what it's worth, my emotional frame towards what she did is gratitude.

I'd love to discuss this with you, since we have interestingly divergent viewpoints on how I should have reacted. Feel free to hit me up: the.jesus.aviles [at] gmail.com

I can settle this debate:

1. She turned out not be marriage material

2. Y'all are way too sensitive about a teenage girl who shoplifted one time.

My goto strategy is to laugh at how silly the joke is, rather than try to make people painfully explain something to show everyone how bad the joke is.

I guess some people really dislike like lame jokes, though!

No, she wasn't dishonorable. She took the hard route, risking her own security out of love. I condemn theft, not because it's theft, but because it's harmful. In a utilitarian way, I feel like she helped me more than she harmed B&N. In terms of virtue, she displayed bravery and caring.

She just didn't care about B&N or property law. Maybe you do care about those things - I'm not condoning theft here!

Now, if you had said Code of "This Chick Turns Out To Be Completely Insane And This Should Have Been A Red Flag" you'd be closer to the mark, but that's for the next post!

Ha! You've got me, "to the point" is going too far. But I should say that it's a relatively quick, light read. Moments like the octothorpe thing actually make the read easier, because the humanity of it makes my brain wake up a little.

Honestly, knowing C made it much easier to understand why design decisions from Rust matter. I see Rust as kind of a (welcome) reaction to the memory model that C++ inherited from C.

I appreciate the kind vibes, and I'm sorry Substack isn't an ideal medium (ha) for you. I decided to publish there just because so many writers I admire are there, and I want to write like they do.

If I switch to a static blog I'll let you know!

The story actually gets way crazier after that!

Just a bibliography of some C books

Without any additional context, this probably refers to Tor onion services: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.onion

You can download Tor Browser to access them. You can find legit onion links using sites like dark.fail.

>Is this worst-case scenario for linux users any worse than the average-case of windows users downloading an .exe from a vendor's website and running it?

Well in my case, I screw around a lot on my computer. So I end up copying and pasting a few lines of bash code that download god-knows-what because I accidentally deleted the entire /etc/ directory and the howto guide that was the 3rd result on Google says "run this it will totally work".

So at least for me, yes, it's often worse than installing an .exe from a vendor's website.

But I didn't mean to say Linux installs don't tend to be safer than Windows, just that it's not as rosy as the original comment made it seem like.

>Traditionally on most linuxes (and bsds) you obtain trusted executables from a known good source (your distribution ) , whilst files from other sources are never run at all.

On the other hand, the vast majority of people installing applications by piping curl output to Bash are also on linuxes and bsds

Maybe this is a feature. When your phone is low on battery, you ask for a charger, and when presented with a normal, plebian charger you get to say "oh, sorry, I need an iphone charger".

If people want to get a practical, compatible phone, they don't get an iphone. iphone only exists as a signal. So while the EU is making a good decision for making iphone's more pratical, they are also misunderstanding what an iphone is imo.

Don't find your talents, cultivate your skills. You likely will never just "find 1 thing you are really good at", but if you find something that's worth getting good at and stick with it even though you suck, eventually you will become good at it.

That's my approach, anyway!

Full Point is fun and random: https://fullpoint.substack.com/

It was definitely easy to jump from learning HTML to learning that I can run code on the backend and render the output by just adding a tag like this:

    <?php
      $data_from_backend = [whatever I need to do on backend];
      echo $data_from_backend;
    ?>

Right there inside the same document, rather than learning about Node, APIs, a templating engine, etc. It kind of just worked and was very simple. Of course, for professional apps this caused a ton of problems and now using PHP that way is seen as something from the dark ages.

>i.e.: in the US at least you can get just enough to be complacent as a man by doing bare minimum stuff.

Why aren't women in the US complacent? Couldn't they just get by doing the bare minimum?

>He is torn between being the kind of man he has been told to be and the kind of man the world seems to want now.

Ironically, I think many men seem to experience this in the opposite direction implied by the article. Men are told to be obedient male feminists, and they find a world in which that mentality sets them up for failure. Women on the otherhand are encouraged to pursue the "toxic masculinity" mindset that men have been chastized for.

So it seems that masculinity itself is a winning strategy, just the sex pursuing that strategy has partially reversed.

I'm not libertarian but the obvious solution is consumer advocacy & reporting groups and such, who certify products as "legit". They do the hard work of figuring out which products are good. But unlike the FDA, they have a market incentive to do this effectively.

I don't propose this belief, but it's the libertarian solution to the problem you pose.

Ironically, I just ran into this phrase last week while reading an anthropology paper from the 90's ("Maya Hackers and the Cyberspatialized Nation-State: Modernity, Ethnostalgia, and a Lizard Queen in Guatemala")

Whenever I hear this phrase it reminds me the part in the book Cryptonomicon where the pretentious humanities professor feels so clever for asking "How many slums will we bulldoze to build the Information Superhighway?"

When I was a teen I made a way shittier version of this using a bunch of vertical <marquee> tags and exotic looking Unicode characters. I literally just copy and pasted them since I didn't know any JS. It looked great as long as you didn't inspect the code!

>an idea these agencies themselves would like perpetuated to make it seem resistance is futile.

Quite the opposite - the conspiratorial reaction is that these agencies want to be mistaken for bumbling bureaucracies, so they let reports of small-level stuff get out. That way we underestimate the real degree of their control and believe that if they ever tried to manipulate us, they would get caught anyway, and besides, they're just making unsuccessful tweets, right?

Or even deeper, that these organizations are meant to distract us from much more powerful entities who they don't even realize they are controlled by.

I don't believe any of this, but the conspiracy theorists deserve more credit for creativity that you are giving them!

Oh completely agree. But to put this in the context of the current argument, the solution (from Twitter's perspective) would be to ban the net center accounts. And I don't think Twitter banning Net Centers would have "silenced" Jimmy Morales, for example.

Social media can definitely be used to silence people, but I don't think that's mostly what's happening (for the most part) wrt big tech banning certain controversial content on their platforms.