Pipoca @ Pipoca @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

455

Joined

2 yr. ago

Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve.

Shepherds have some herding instinct, but they don't magically understand herding.

You do, in fact, need to train a herding dog to herd if you want it to be any good at it.

I think his point is that keeping guns broadly but e.g. banning "assault" weapons doesn't keep people safe.

In NYS, for example, you can have a semi auto rifle easily enough, but it can't have a telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc.

Compare that to the much broader restrictions in Australian or British gun laws, and it's no surprise why you still have many, many more mass shootings in NY.

The world of dog breeding is terrible and needs to end. Not the world of dogs just like...casually making puppies. That's fine.

That doesn't say "only puppy mills need to end", but that all dog breeding needs to end because puppy mills are shitty, and we should just have casual oops litters instead.

Puppy mills are terrible. As is breeding brachycephalic dogs like pugs, or particularly inbred breeds.

But working dogs are usually part of a deliberate breeding program for a reason. Seeing Eye, for example, breeds their guide dogs specially. You don't put random mutts in the Iditarod, nor would you use them as livestock guardians or to herd sheep. That breeding program might or might not involve purebreds, but it definitely involves breeding healthy dogs to purpose.

More to the point, though, what's wrong with someone getting a couple performance titles on a purebred dog, health testing it, and breeding it to another titled, health tested dog that's as distantly related as possible?

Celsius and Fahrenheit have nearly identical definitions.

In Fahrenheit, 0 is the temp of a mixture of ice and a particular brine. In Celsius, it's the temp of a mixture of ice and water.

In Fahrenheit, there's 180 degrees between boiling and freezing. In Celsius, it's 100.

It's not like distance, where mile comes from the Latin "mille passus", "thousand paces". Originally, Roman legions would place mile markers on roads by literally counting out their steps and placing them appropriately.

Meanwhile, a kilometer is a thousand meters, where a meter was originally defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle.

Mile and kilometer are defined based on competely different things - a human step vs the circumference of the earth.

Companies generally want something they control, so they can lock your computer and wipe it remotely when they lay you off.

They care about your arch install because they don't want it any more than your OS X install. Their arch install would be fine, but their JAMF controlled OS X install is probably much cheaper for them to manage, practically speaking.

I honestly think it has very little to do with the OS itself.

I think it's more about practicalities and inertia - ordering laptops with the OS preinstalled, administering them, corporate VPN software, etc.

Both are great development OSs, but OS X is a better corporate OS.

OS X is literally a heavily modified version of FreeBSD with a very shiny GUI.

It ships with a terminal that has zsh installed by default, and homebrew is a decent package manager. You can write scripts for it in precisely the same way you do for Linux.

It being closed source means you can't edit the OS itself. And there's certainly a bunch of weird stuff that it does. But mastering linux and mastering OS X are pretty similar things.

Linux's big competitive advantage in web servers is licensing. You don't have to pay Apple a penny to start up a linux VM, and you don't have to contractually run it on apple hardware.

In most modern languages, the difference in building your project on linux vs OS X is basically non-existant. I've spent nearly a decade working on backend web services on company MacBooks that get deployed to a linux EC2 instance. Running the server locally makes basically no difference.

Linux's advantages are more legal than technical.

In software, it seems incredibly common for companies to give developers MacBooks and then have their software deployed on a linux VM in AWS.

It's just one of the lower friction corporate options for software companies. The last time I used an institutionally managed linux computer was college.

There's definitely tech jobs where you need to know linux. But there's also a ton of jobs where you don't have to know much of anything about it beyond common unix stuff, and where OS X specific knowledge is more useful.

Nassau, the capital of the Bahamas, is roughly shaped like an American football a bit under 20 miles long and 6 miles wide at the widest.

Not Just Bikes did a video a while back about how car dependant it is. Car dependency is unfortunately often self-reinforcing because car infrastructure is ugly and dangerous for people who aren't in cars, which pushes more people into cars.

There's assorted companies that sell parasitic wasps as pest control.

Spalding sells theirs as "fly predators"; they basically look like tiny gnats but lay their eggs in fly pupa. They work great.

There's a huge number of different species of wasp, which vary greatly in size. The smallest wasps are the smallest known insects; they're literally smaller than a millimeter. With many of them, you wouldn't know they were wasps if you didn't have a microscope.

In addition to pollinating, many wasps either eat or parasitize other insects. Yellowjackets will hunt horse flies, and there's assorted wasps that are sold to farmers to control various pests..

How does that in any way address the question of if the law is xenophobic or not?

So it isn't xenophobic, since the local majority religion is also under rules of "no religious symbols wearing".

However, does the local majority religion mandate wearing a religious symbol?

Wearing a cross doesn't seem akin in significance to wearing a turban or a kippah. From what I understand, it's more of just a Christian fashion statement than a deep part of the religion.

So yes, this seems quite xenophobic to do something that's a mild annoyance at worst for the dominant religion and a major issue for minority religions.

The American spelling matches the American pronunciation, and it was one of the original variations of the word. Americans didn't pick it out of nowhere.

That's more akin to saying "it's spelled aubergine, not eggplant, you stupid Americans".

Quay is one of those words like bowline or boatswain that's commonly mispronounced because people see it in writing without hearing it said. Bowline "properly" rhymes with pin, and boatswain sounds like bosun.

A similar thing happened to solder in Britain, where it originally had a silent l as a nod to its Latin etymology, but some people started pronouncing it.

Uniform rules don't always affect everyone uniformly. It's really not hard to create uniform laws that disproportionately target a particular group.

For example, North Dakota passed a law that required Voter ID with a residential street address on it. However, many Native Americans living on tribal land in the state didn't have a residential street address.. Most people in the state who lived in a house that didn't have an address lived on a reservation. The law was clearly racist and specifically designed to depress the Native American vote for partisan gain, yet used the same rules for everyone to do so.

I guess you could argue some religious garb is heavily tied to cultural identity

More importantly, some is tied to religious identity.

For example, regardless of your culture, if you converted to orthodox Judaism you'd be obligated to wear a kippah if you're male.

How exactly do you hide sideburns?

If they wear a hat to put them under, it'd probably be interpreted as a religious head covering and they'd be sent home anyways.

Christians are just less of an arse when it comes to those symbols.

That's like saying that Christians are less of an arse when it comes to religious dietary rules. It's just not a part of their religion in the same way that not proselytizing is a part of Judaism.

Honestly, as someone who grew up in the US, Christian proselytizers are orders of magnitude worse than the modern orthodox kid in school who wore a kippah.