zzalpha

This article is all kinds of horrifying. ... "We are just going through the motions cuz we gotta. Kind of like plunging the toilet."?

Maybe you should go read a book like "Lovers in marriage" before you go trying to write anymore marriage advice.

Or, you know, you can make time for each other because this is the most important person in your life. Instead of making excuses.

I could go on.

I did not set the tone, here, and I stand by my comment.

Just on this point, I couldn't agree more.

The problem with "venting" is that whomever is listening is almost certainly part of your personal echo chamber. And when dealing with a problem in one's marriage, the last thing people need are mirrors reflecting themselves.

I can't tell you the number of times I've come out of a fight with my wife where, some time later, I realized I was a total ass and needed to apologize for my behaviour.

If I'd "vented" to someone, odds are it would've just hardened my resolve.

In many perfectly healthy, normal marriages, there's a disparity (sometimes significant) in sexual interest/appetite between the spouses that has absolutely nothing to do with their love for each other and everything to do with basic biological, sociological, and psychological differences.

In such a marriage, sexual intimacy actually requires focused effort to maintain. Not "work". That makes it sound transactional in nature. But effort. Like, you have to prioritize it.

To suggest that marriages in which this is necessary are somehow broken is simply unfair. Every marriage is unique and beyond basic expectations of love and decency, it's unreasonable to use ones own experiences as the template by which to judge other people's relationships.

That said, I'm curious to hear what kinds of things you're referring to. Do you have some fictional examples?

My wife and I each have our own best friends, but in my own marriage (14 years... since we all have to publish our credentials ;), if there's something I can't tell me wife, it's something I wouldn't tell anyone, best friends included.

The only obvious exception is if it's something about the marriage itself, but in that case, I'd speak to a friend first only if I needed to work out my own thoughts and emotions before I then talked to my wife. So even in that case, it's more a matter of timing than keeping certain things from her entirely.

People change, and in a good marriage, the spouses should absolutely push each other to change in ways that are healthy and positive.

It's simply ridiculous to assume that whomever you're marrying, right now, is the person they will be for the rest of their lives, or that you shouldn't try to influence those changes.

In fact, that goes beyond just marriages... I would hope that, in all of my relationships, be it as friend, brother, husband, or son, I am a positive influence on my loved ones, and that those people are a positive influence on me.

That is, where users of a point-and-click interface might interact with a computer superficially, the command-line allows for a fluidity of expression and progression of intent that it's extremely difficult to supplant.

When you realize this, the mistake this comic makes is obvious: the command-line is, for many problem domains, simply a superior method of human-computer interaction. In fact, in many ways, it's the GUI that squanders the immense power we have at our fingertips, as it frequently makes it more difficult to express intent rather than less.

For example, here's a basic task: Find all files in a given directory with spaces in their names, and replace those spaces with underscores.

At a command-line I can think of any number of ways to solve this problem. I'd probably opt for a combination of find, sed, and bash looping.

Now try to do this efficiently in any existing GUI interface that isn't purpose built for this exact operation.

The conversations we enter into on the command-line allow us to iteratively build up solutions to problems, solving them with simple, composable tools. There is simply no GUI equivalent.

You cannot pair anonymity and security with censorship. They are fundamentally incompatible. So either accept that nasty content will be out there, or acknowledge that you don't actually want perfect anonymity and security.

Exactly the point.

Look, there's this thing in western jurisprudence called "mens rea". It's what differentiates, say, first degree murder from manslaughter.

In this case, RT and Sputnik are clearly motivated by the desire to manipulate the US election. As you've already conceded, those other outlets are not. As a result, these represent different acts, and therefore it is not unreasonable for them to warrant different responses.

The fact is the US offers the least PTO of any developed nation. Same goes with sick leave and mat/pat leave.

And free lunch? Free bus passes? Stock and option plans, profit sharing, educiation/tuition, retirement, gym memberships... HA!

I know this is shocking, but: most of the world isn't SV. Those benefits are fantasies for the vast majority of American salaried employees.

Many people I know live with 2 weeks of combined PTO, 3 months of maternity leave (mandated by law... ish... there's a bunch of exclusions) and no paternity leave whatsoever, basic health care, and a 401k match if they're lucky.

Now, I'm not claiming that a salaried employee isn't more expensive than a contract employee. That's objectively true. And in a very real sense, the entire point and why this trend is alarming: the more people pushed to underemployement (part-time or contract work), the more people who don't realize those additional benefits, thus contributing to the ongoing demolition of the middle class.

But the US workplace is hideously behind the rest of the western world, and is still managing to lead the way in underemployment as well. After a while you really gotta wonder why that is...

Uhh... Uber is, like, 5-6 years old in most locales, less in many. This isn't some alternative universe we have to imagine. We just have to think back to before 2010... you know, the before time. The long long ago.

And back then, taxi rates were hardly "outrageous". Hell, even today, Uber isn't necessarily that much cheaper in a lot of places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

This is talking about blood glucose levels, which is influenced by many factors, including glucose production in the liver.

Because that's how it's positioned in the market?

Like, literally what they claim it's for, and supposedly the reason they went into business?

Heck, Rhinehart once claimed "I have not set foot in a grocery store in years. Nevermore will I bumble through endless confusing aisles like a pack-donkey searching for feed while the smell of rotting flesh fills my nostrils and fluorescent lights sear my eyeballs and sappy love songs torture my ears."

Random aside: Once every week or two is considered "regular" consumption to you?

Isn't this product supposed to be the end-all and be-all of meal replacements? What has curtailed your consumption?

It's actually worse than that. Capitalism cannot on its own deal with negative externalities even when they are quantifiable.

You solve that through government regulation. But when government is bought and sold by businesses who would prefer costs be externalized as much as possible, the outcomes are... less than ideal.

This is literally the exact kind of hubris that got us in this mess in the first place...

You sound like you're crushing it. Keep it up, man.

Personally, I grew up in a single parent family as a classic latchkey kid and greatly contributed to the household out of simple necessity. The life skills I learned were invaluable, and you're doing your kid a great service by having them learn those lessons.

Yes, kids need to learn that responsibility sometimes means doing what we don't want to do, often as part of caring for others.

That's called growing up.

Then again, given the number of "adults" I've met that don't know how to cook or do laundry for themselves, or gripe if they have to sacrifice their own time or energy in service of others, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by this comment...

But are you claiming form factor is not part of the price at all? If so, how do you explain it for books that have both versions actively in print?

In fact, it doesn't make sense: it's not like hard covers get cheaper over time.

The publishing industry can blame themselves for that.

Back before ebooks, a typical paperback would run between 8-12 dollars whereas a hardcover would easily be 20 dollars or more.

This gave the perception that printing and binding is a significant portion of book price.

Of course, we all know that's crap. In practice, they were simply charging a premium markup for a product that was perceived as being superior.

But now who can blame the consumer for having the same basic expectation, but in the opposite direction, when ebooks are considered?

Yes. You are.

I also think that there are relatively few institutions that promote virtuous, pro-social behavior with the effective and long-term viewpoint that a church can.

You mean, aside from, you know, the family unit, schools, the boy and girl scouts (yes, I realize there's a light religious component to those organizations but they are not, themselves, religious institutions), secular charity organizations...

Frankly, being blunt, your entire comment reeks of bias against atheists... which shouldn't be too surprising. In the US, atheists and rapists are seen as equally trustworthy.

The idea that a secular society can't "promote virtuous, pro-social behavior with the effective and long-term viewpoint" is patently absurd. And that religion unquestionably does so is equally absurd.

It's ironic, as Canada and Europe are far less religious than the US, yet far more "virtuous", providing far more in terms of support for the poor, the elderly, and the family unit, among other things.

But yes... religion, clearly that's the way to build a virtuous society...

Why specifically religious communities? As long as someone is doing good in the world, what difference does it make? People deserve respect so long as they themselves respect others.

That said, if they provide charity or other services while pushing their religious beliefs on folks, as is often the case for proselytizing religions (I'm looking at you World Vision), then they lose my respect. My spiritual beliefs should not be held hostage in exchange for charity.

I made what I believed was a rational risk assessment at the time (back when MtGox was spinning up... Not exactly the most credible days for BTC) and decided to avoid the hype.

Could I use the money now? Sure. It's money.

But I don't regret the decision now because I was acting on the information I had.

Heck, even now, it's possible for someone to buy BTC and for it to crash. Should those people regret their decision even if, in their estimation, it's rational now?

To be blunt: if you spend any time regretting these types of things you're a gambler, not an investor, and will find yourself tricked into trying to time markets. And that will eventually bite you in the ass.

As for me, the same reasoning that kept me out of the market then keeps me out now: I don't believe in the fundamentals and I'm not a gambler. Full stop.

For those who do, the should buy and hold for the long term to realize the most gains.

But "it's worth a lot more now than it was 10 years ago" is not fundamentals. It's just the irrational assumption that past performance predicts future behaviour.