Sadly I find that the people who I most often come into conflict about this with are the ones who have unknowingly curated their social world to only people with very similar brains to themselves by being an intolerable jerk to those who don't (I suspect their discomfort with someone being "smarter" than them stems from projecting their own feelings and behaviour towards those "dumber" than them) but due to external circumstances of life we are forced to try our best to get along. The fact that they make that unecesarily difficult doesn't change that I still need to do my best to do so. Meanwhile, anyone I don't need to get along with who acts that way tends to very quickly pick up on the message to suck my nuts and fuck off. For those who I must get along with I try very hard not to try to clarify things for them unless it seems either quite important that they have a better understanding or that it would be very easy and non-comtraversial to do so. I still usually try to give them plenty of time to figure it out themselves, then try to give them the least amount of prompting possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Meanwhile I'll still happily ask for their help if there's something that exceeds my capabilities but not theirs. It's just a shame that intelligence (whatever that really means) is somehow seen as more important an indicator of someone's worth than most other random traits like height, coordination etc.
As a profoundly clumsy person I've never felt I was being personally insulted by someone else being dexterous for example.
I was trying to explain this to someone a couple of days ago. This article definitely helps! I'm pretty excited to see if this is successfully verified or not and it seems we won't have to wait long! This, plus the confirmation of energy positive cold fusion within the last couple of years could really be the defining moments between our current level of advancement and a big step forward.
I find treading the line between people thinking I'm talking down to them vs them thinking I'm pretentiously trying to seem smarter than them exhausting. It's a stupid game where I try really hard not to unintentiont piss people off and they get offended and resentful anyway because I dared to try to communicate with them but failed to perfectly thread the needle of how to speak to them on a level they are comfortable with.
That can go either direction though. Sometimes the women are being unfairly judged for reasonable behaviour a man wouldn't be challenged for. Sometimes the women are being judged for unreasonable behaviour that a man would be unfairly unchallenged for.
I remember checking out some Ecco shoes at the mall years ago, didn’t pull the trigger as they were almost $300 but the way the construction as described to me it sounds like those could last 5+ years.
It's nearly always a false economy to try to reduce the upfront cost of footware (and a tremendous number of other things)
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
Use shoe trees
Don’t wear the same pair two days in a row
People really underestimate how much better your footware lasts if you take care of it by cycling between a few pairs and providing good interior support when isn't in use.
Also much more engaging than BeatSaber IMO, never been a fan of flailing my arms to slash blocks on beat. But shooting and dodging? Give me more!
Personally I'm more interested in flailing my arms than shooting and dodging.
Pistol Whip is just a much better execution of its concept than Beatsaber is of it's own. Though Beatsaber is a pretty decent execution of Beatsaber. It just falls slightly short of its potential. Whereas Pistol Whip shoots straight past any expectations you'd have for it and finds new ways to be better than it strictly needs to be.
Depends what exactly your after. I suspect you're looking for something to parallel flatscreen AAA titles in which case there's only a handful and I think they've all been mentioned already.
On the other hand, Pistol Whip is one of the best games I've ever played. But it's more the equivalent of a flatscreen hit indie genre title than a AAA blockbuster.
On the occasions where I need to use just a bar of soap to shower with, I usually build up a big lather on my stomach and/or chest then spread it outwards from there (relathering on my torso again if there isn't enough initially.)
There's certainly lots of things going on in the film and since they aren't expressed in a heavy handed way there's lots of space left for people to find meaning for themselves there.
I would say that the journey of the central protagonist(s) is always a primary part of any good film though.
While it is a significant element I'm not sure that Joy's arc itself is really a core part of "what the movie is about" so much as how that impacts other characters. We only experience that narrative through how Evelyn experiences what happens with Joy.
To my mind that is much more about an exploration of feeling like you are losing someone you care about and about the experience of trying to support someone you care about through an self-destructive crisis.
Though I do think that Joy's story is interesting in its own right, the fact that it is framed from another characters frame of reference indicates to me that the primary takeaway is intended to be about having a relationship with someone going through what Joy is going through rather than Joy's journey itself. (IE it serves as a way for us both to experience what Evelyn is going through first hand and to see how others who care about her might be experiencing it.)
That said, it's also the case that largely Joy is wrestling with the same issues as Evelyn but from a different perspective and so that contrast is valuable in highlighting what is going on and also gives people who are more easily able to relate to Joy than Evelyn (perhaps because their own life more resembles one than the other) a way into the same sorts of themes.
I think that's quite likely yes. But that in and off itself indicates that management consider stuff like UX to be non-essential expertise that sits outside of what is required for a functioning lean operation.
"realized they should have had automated filters in place to prevent such issues. They are now implementing a two-step automated filtering and flagging system for user handles while still involving human moderators."
They wouldn't need to implement a system they already implemented but wasn't working properly. They'd just be fixing it.
I think it was really good but slightly lost focus for a bit near the end. Though since it's structured as an analogy for the ADHD experience perhaps that's intentional? It does snap quite sharply back into focus again after that.
Sometimes we can feel uncomfortable and unsatisfied with our lives, stop appreciating the things we otherwise would and feel there's something externally wrong that we just can't seem to fix when actually the problem is about our relationship with ourselves and fixing that allows us to joyfully rengage with our lives.
In the case of the main character (and one of the creators) this is due to the struggle they feel between the model they have of how they ought to be and the reality of who they are because of their undiagnosed ADHD. Through the experiences in the film they gain a better understanding and acceptance of themselves which enables them to move forward with healthier relationships with themselves and others and greater fullfillnent in and appreciation of the life they are already living.
Also kung-fu and interdimensional travel and jokes about anal penetration.
the dude that played the husband was Short Round from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
And my goodness he was great in this, hopefully it's the start of lots of great new projects showcasing his acting!
Edit: there are other "points" of the movie but this is arguably the main one and the next most important one is really heavy...
I would expect that 99% bits of your app that talk to the API can be the same for both, you just need to maintain slightly different code for interacting with each actual API.
In fact scrolling further through the comments I see that not only is this how @hariette is handling it for Artemis but she's also looking at making the talking to both APIs bit of the code available to other devs.
Failing to attempt to design and impliment an important feature at all is not the same as a bug. Unless I'm missing something they aren't saying "we did have systems in place to prevent people creating accounts with intentionally offensive usernames but we oopsed so it didn't work as intended until we fixed it." They're saying "it either didn't even occur to us our software needed that or we decided we just don't care so we didn't even try to do it until people pointed out that we were missing this important thing at which point we started working on it."
So, either they somehow just missed that this is something they need (which they really shouldn't have and suggests they aren't thinking even slightly about user conduct on their platform) or they did and decided they wanted to see if they could get away with just not doing it.
I understand it's easy to get lost in the core functionality of making the thing go but you can't lose sight of the actual intended outcome like this.
Sadly I find that the people who I most often come into conflict about this with are the ones who have unknowingly curated their social world to only people with very similar brains to themselves by being an intolerable jerk to those who don't (I suspect their discomfort with someone being "smarter" than them stems from projecting their own feelings and behaviour towards those "dumber" than them) but due to external circumstances of life we are forced to try our best to get along. The fact that they make that unecesarily difficult doesn't change that I still need to do my best to do so. Meanwhile, anyone I don't need to get along with who acts that way tends to very quickly pick up on the message to suck my nuts and fuck off. For those who I must get along with I try very hard not to try to clarify things for them unless it seems either quite important that they have a better understanding or that it would be very easy and non-comtraversial to do so. I still usually try to give them plenty of time to figure it out themselves, then try to give them the least amount of prompting possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Meanwhile I'll still happily ask for their help if there's something that exceeds my capabilities but not theirs. It's just a shame that intelligence (whatever that really means) is somehow seen as more important an indicator of someone's worth than most other random traits like height, coordination etc.
As a profoundly clumsy person I've never felt I was being personally insulted by someone else being dexterous for example.