4L3moNemo @ 4L3moNemo @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

39

Joined

2 yr. ago

And in a moment you'll learn, that at your scale, for the practical purposes, the universe rounds pi to n numbers. E.g. ~3.1416. Check & mate.

In this case, I would say – fck Apple. Indians demand is solid. Apples shitty policy of random plugs and industry incompatible chargers shouldn't have been born ever and definetly it shouldn't continue. Usually I'm against regulation by goverment, but in this case it is realy for the benefit of users and enviroment.

In my opinion booking com had to take the responsibility to save their reputation. If it's each hotels account administrator bad practice (week pass, stupid email links opening, ignoring whats hapening with their account, etc...), then hotels had to be made to compensate, if fault lies in bookings.com bad practices working with those accounts managers, the booking had to compensate. Either way those are business'es and they have obligations to their clients. But in their protection – if clients were specificaly stupid, like in opened some dumb shady link to third party payment systems, from chat or something like that level stupid, then client is to blame himself. Each case had to be investigated in detail. P.S. Journalists had to put more effort, not jus report in the style he told this and other he told that and then to leave hanging. That's slightly shitting on everybodies reputation, including the clients, cause probably they could be the dumb ones also. Yet, no clues or details to understand what realy happened there, exept that money been lost – not a good article.

Summary bot have missed the esential line: The booking.com behaved like shitheads and did not took care for money to be returned to the customers, those who lost it not due their fault but due bookings com bad pratice in working with the hotels accounts admins.

If you count finger joints and tips, using your thumb – you can count in hex (base16) on each hand.

An odd error for the company, indeed. • 505 HTTP Version Not Supported

Just one vote missing till the • 506 Variant Also Negotiates

Guess, they are stuck now. :D

If content providers and content sindication web companies will become profitable, that means other companies will want a pie too and the new web sites will start to appear. Also, it means that there is a profitable niche in this particular kind of content type trafic. And so, anyone can start a website with that content small and try to grow. The more paywalls on old established ones, the better the chances of the new ones, (or for unpaywaled again, old ones) replacing them.

As if I care :). The web is wide. I can wait whilst reading something else more usefull or waisting my time elsewhere, till all those newly paywall'ed (or accountwalled just to read) sites would want me (and other lost users) back and get rid of their paywalls.

But do Arab and Muslim leaders have beef with a ham ass, already? Or are they demanding to give up only kosher, just as usual.

Easyest way, to begin with, is to use a browser addon and userscripts. Addons to look for are Greasemonkey, Tampermonkey, or Violentmonkey and alike alternatives. Keyword to google "userscripts". P.S. As I see it, from your description, you just want some mods (changes) to existing UI, no need to rebuild one from a scratch in other more complicated ways.

P.S. I've read a bit about specifics of Egyptian homelesness problem. I see that the problem for the big part here is, a bit, of a diferent kind of nature... than in long term (almost permanent) refugies camps, or former Gaza strip (as an example), where almost everything is/was suplied.

Seams, that Egyptian government doesn't even know (have exact criteria) whom to count as a homeless ones there and lot's of people seam to be living in undeveloped self-build slums without improving the enviroment themselves further or for better. It's hard to understand – is it because it is good enougth for them as is, or that they have diferent priorities or no good leadership. Anyway even if full support is not provided, or only partial is – living in whatever shelter in africa south is much, much easyer than in (as for example) in north europe, where it would be a certain death at the first winter, or even as early as autumn. Maybe north people (and societies) been forced by nature elements to become more self incentivised (othervise death) to take care of enviroment and homes development up to the level, or maybe in north simply nobody survived it in enough amounts to procreate endles generations of homeless up to astonishing 12 milion numbers. Such number of people can build a country and we are talking about what if 10% of them took a part (atleast two hours per day) in helping to build and develop their enviroment themselves. My first question stands – how many homeless is needed to build a house for themselves? I'll just corect it with adding – and to improve, develop enviroment around it.

Do you imply all theirs mothers were?

You think you can read, I thought you could. ;) Because I specifically mentioned quot: taken than the leadership is provided ...

and that implies all kinds of leadership. Helping to organize, management, help of qualified engineers, consultations and their services, overseers in the field, and/or training specialists. It's not that it is a rocket science, and we are not talking about skyscrapers. Any body can be a builder after some explaining, if we are talking about single store simple hause with running watter, sewer. And anybody can dig and lay pipes. Hell, they already had ramp, lever, clay brics, stone blocs, ropes, paper, maths, and even a wheel there, more than a 5 thousand years ago. More than 2 thousands years ago they already had there a water wheel, pipes and other water technologies. It is not that a rocket science is needed to develop the enviroment. It can be needed if we want to do it fast, labour and economicaly efective, but that is not a case here. We are talking about supported people – it's not that they use their time efectively now or will lose something by taking two hours per day to improve their enviroment themselves.

Do they chose to do not work for the good of themselves and not to inprove their enviroment, because of their dignity? Do "feeders" and supporters think they improve dignity of the feeded ones, by keeping needfull ones dependant with constant support?

And whats wrong in building infrastructure by themselves? Diging up watter, clay, making whatever things civilization done thousands years? Other (e.g. north countries) people do it even then they have to grow their own food, fight the cold and bad seasons in parallel. Here we have all food, minimum shelter from elements and even medicine already provided. And yet, where is the progress? Whats wrong in that whole support process then?

I have a question. How many homeless people do we need to build a house, taken that stones, clay and sticks are available (or provided)? People once build pyramids there. World is anyway supporting them with food and a means to live – can't the leadership be provided too (if they can't organize themselves)? Can't able to work build the houses for themselves and others? What do they do all day?

P.S. and I understand than not everybody can work, some have health issues - but hey, we are talking about 12milion, sure there are atleast 120k able to work persons in that crowd, who could work for 2 hours per day each.

Isn't that imaginary "full value" somewhere far far above or below – lets call it, "momentum optimum value"?

As I see it: too much concurency in place (lets say geographycaly) and workers will fight between themselves for work, vages will go down. Too few specialists and the value of them goes up for the team (company, organization, comunity, town, etc..) Such specialist, for several hours and his half day trip, can be overpayed so much, that 10 full time workers (spending their time creating value, puting effort) working 8 hours/day for a whole week would not get in total. Are socialist gonna to pay them all equal or maybe even more for the second ones, reasoning that technicaly they been putting more effort and time? Or are we just playing with words and an abstraction "full value" means nothing else than "how much that is worth as part of a product". But if so, then your before mentioned, hipotetycaly 'nothing doing' CEO or Owner (living from investment of capital), alsow did their value part. First one, lets say, by making a 5 minutes call (or just playing a tenis with right client) which granted a begining of 6 milion contract arangements. Second one (I'll take an extreme), by deciding to give his money to broker or banker for them to invest in some sucsessfull busines, or by spending it on to be able to do nothing, instead of keeping it under his pilow. Oh and by spending it he also somewhat does create a value – he buys cofee for 20$ instead of 2$, creating value oportunity for the restaurant and it's labourers and further down the chain.

How do we measure that "full value" in your understanting of (post capitalism) socialism? Is it by labour hours, labour effort, or labour effect?

What about cases, then wisely doing nothing will create value too? :) E.g. not shipping right away, but delaying/waiting for more orders to combine, will optimise logistics and so it will create value.

// You imagine the tone, the signs you think you see are just a consequence of translation.

Why even start a comment in your case, if you position right from the begining is "I don't want to, or I can't explain" e.g. eli5 own point of view?

Well we are getting away from the topic of "profit from capital", but I have to mention it – Yugoslavia was a shithole too although somewhat a bit less than sssr. But lets not expand here both.

// Well, forgive, if my (on a go) english is a bit less comprehensive for a native speaker than for the euringlish speaking one :) Lemmy android client does not have a proofreader, but it's not a problem for me to rephrase then you point at problemic to comprehend sections.

Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn’t appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more?

This doesn't make sense, I don't even know what you're trying to say.

I ment, if labourer is not hapy about (does not like) the compensation value he gets for his job, but still agrees to sell it for that value – whom we are to blame him or someone with capital for paying him less? But if I corectly understood you, that is not a problem in your socialism understanding (or interpretation), right?