Senal @ Senal @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

223

Joined

2 yr. ago

Depends on how debilitating it is, if its bad enough, therapy might be a useful option.

Body dysmorphia about weight might need a bit more help than you can give as an individual.

It might not meet the criteria for that, but worth consideration.

Edit: to clarify, dysmorphia like this is where the brain refuses to acknowledge the relatively objective reality of a "normal" weight.

It's often one of the underlying causes of bulimia/anorexia and the converse.

In fairness the msdn documentation is prone to this also.

By "this" I mean having what looks like a comprehensive section about the thing you want but the actual information you need isn't there, but you need to read the whole thing to find out.

I think you meant to reply to the other person.

If you'll notice I mention the biggest offenders and/or the the underlying management infrastructure.

Private jet owners getting systematically luigi'd would also fall under that remit, I was just using data centres as an example.

Oil rigs, Nestlé, blackrock etc would also all work , with varying degrees of efficacy and difficulty.

To address your argument directly, before you get all preachy think of the actual consequences of major data centres going down, all the critical infrastructure running on said data centres would also go down.

That's air traffic control, shipping and logistics ,and yes, agriculture; any system relying on cloud services running in those data centres

If you pick the right ones and do it properly (a competently executed strategy, if you will) then you could cripple most industries, with all the consequences that brings.

Just to be clear you are saying you didn't provide a claim of truth with no supporting argument because, and I quote

what i said were all truth claims.

no argument at all is needed.

I know you aren't going to understand how your reply doesn't make sense but if in the future you come back to this , this kind of thing is what people call mental gymnastics.

It kinda feels like punching down at this point so I'll leave you be.

Point to the advocation.

Edit: changed my mind, no need, see my other reply , good luck.

Indeed, but the definition does, I don't care at all about this hill, but not being able to understand the application of the definition of words is going to make conversations difficult for you.

I would assume a competently executed strategy of eliminating the worst offenders (and/or the managing infrastructure thereof) would probably have more impact, they probably meant legal things though.

For instance, a solo campaign of taking out the biggest data centers would probably work. Difficult though.

Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than "I said so" followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn't leave much in the way of conversation points.

But lets give it a go.

Firstly there was no demand or proposal for any demographic to partake in the activity mentioned.

Secondly, assuming the first point wasn't true, by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity, which it patently ridiculous.

Thirdly, the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn't a thought terminating cliche, perhaps you could claim ad hominem but as I said before ,"I'm right, because reasons" doesn't leave many conversational avenues open.

The rookie was the most blatant example for me and i was incredibly disappointed , because i like Nathan Fillion.

I heard it got less bootlicky later on but i never made it that far.

How the fuck would I boycott a brand for being owned by Nestle before I find out that it's owned by Nestle?

Consumer research, look up the brands you don't know before you buy them, the corps aren't generally out here running shell companies to hide relationships.

Im not being snide and I don't care about the rest of the argument with OP, this is the literal answer to that one question, that's all.

The Luddite's?

Absolutely agree with this but there is no denying the innovation levels at spacex are higher

Undeniably, they've been doing amazing work (at least from my rocketry technology peasant point of view).

They landed people on the moon and then did fuck all for decades.

Indeed, all i was saying is that they were capable given budget and circumstances.

That budget and direction comes from the government.

When Musk started SpaceX he was not well known yet, SpaceX came before Tesla.

I will admit, i thought spacex was just another company he bought his way in to, like tesla, seems i was mistaken about that.

He was able to get into the businesses he has because he was rich yes, but you can find many accounts of engineers that worked under him speak of how good he was at finding ways to cut unnecessary costs.

And you can equally find many accounts of having to distract him from the day to day operations because he's unreliable , unpredictable and chaotic (none of those meant in a good way).

He's also known for buying good press and using litigation to silence people.

He’s not a technical genius that’s for sure. But he has been a good CEO for SpaceX.

I doubt this, but that could just be bias, i don't have any actual evidence of the long term impact of him as CEO.

Recently though, he's provably been significantly more of a liability than a benefit, even if just from a PR and public sentiment point of view.

But I refuse to simply wave away his achievements simply because I don’t like him. I can not like someone and still acknowledge they have done something good.

Indeed, i push back on the myth that he's some self made tony stark genius, but it isn't like he's not achieved anything.

I would personally attribute most of that to neptoism, wealth, luck and opportunity, but that doesn't remove the achievement itself.

You mean the NASA who landed people on the moon?

So let's assume you aren't a moon landing denier and use that as a baseline, NASA is clearly capable of things given the right circumstances and budget.

SpaceX benefited from his reputation and money, because they sure as shit didn't benefit from his technical acumen.

Business wise he is successful because he's rich and influential and that works to mitigate how shitty he is at actually running an organisation, that doesn't mean he has skills as a business person that means he has money and influence, in his case originally from the mine, then from buying and bullying his was in to businesses that were technologically sound and boosting them with his money.

You could make an argument he's a relatively good investor, but he's an actively bad CEO.

They could stir up interest by actually finishing the first game.

There are supposed to be 5 story episodes, i think the last released episode (4) was three years ago.

Since then they've released a full DLC and are close to releasing the second game from what i can tell.

I'm not bitter or anything, i haven't got past the second episode yet, so this makes zero difference to me personally.

In fairness is was full jank on release, the initial patches got it to "bethesda jank" where it was fun with the bugs (provided you could actually play it) but still bug ridden.

It got better over time, until just before the "big patch" came in that fully changed how it all worked skills and mechanics wise (gameplay was mostly the same).

Honestly i prefer, pre-"big patch" but the fully patched game is considerably smoother and more coherent.

So, aside from the years of post release development, completely missing features that are never actually coming (looking at you full transit system), it's actually pretty good.

An absolutely dogshit way of releasing a game, but if you waited for a few years and bought it on discount , it's actually a really fun game (provided you like that sort of thing).

TBC I'm not justifying anything about this process , it was a major fuckup and many other dev houses would have gone under from the weight of how badly they fucked it up, but they had that witcher money, so.

Sounds like you have an idea of what it means to you and are trying to foist that upon others.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I don't exactly disagree, but i think my stance is that the money is the reason and the morals/ethics are a byproduct of having to do what it takes to get that money, in certain markets.

Sure, enough pressure from the ad execs would bring about change, probably.

I just wanted to point out that they aren't working with a moral or ethical baseline, only money.