𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍 @ sxan @midwest.social

🅸 🅰🅼 🆃🅷🅴 🅻🅰🆆.

---

Read more

Posts

26

Comments

3,688

Joined

3 yr. ago

Counter:

1. Carry-ons can be objectively better for passengers.
   • Go straight to your gate, no check-in drop-off
   • No angst about lost luggage
   • No interminable waiting at the luggage carousel
   • Less TSA pawing through and stealing your stuff
   • For many trips, a carry-on is all you need
2. Carry-ons are cheaper for airlines.
   • Carry-ons require no handlers to transport or physically stack luggage
   • Carry-ons are categorically lighter and use less space than checked bags, translating to less fuel

2b could be mitigated by checking only carry-on-sized luggage; basically a smaller luggage-size limit.

I traveled for business for years, and got used to traveling only in a carry-on. My GRo (the best luggage ever built, and which you can no longer but) always fit into a single overhead space. I could pack underwear and several business shirts, toiletries, a pair of (compressable) casual shores, and wear my suit, and still have room left for a pair of jeans. It was a stretch to go for two work weeks, but I could do it. One week was no inconvenience at all. Now even when I travel for pleasure, unless it's a two week vacation I still only pack a carry-on.

That said: I'm a man, and women in corporate environments - unfairly - often feel obligated to pack more clothes: multiple pairs of shoes, multiple outfits, more cosmetics, etc. It is generally easier for a man to stretch a suit by altering only shirts and ties. Even so, my wife will also pack only a carry-on if the trip is 5-days or less. Even though the company pays for baggage fees, it's a worse customer experience at both ends of the trip to check a bag, and I don't think there's much airlines could do about that. It's a straightforward logistical problem.

Except for long, or specialty, trips (e.g, skiing, backpacking), carry-ons for us are subjectively, but uncontestedly, superior. Airlines reversing the fee schedule would be categorically worse for us, enough that we'd switch our frequent flier programs over it.

You're getting a lot of flak, but this is sort of the plot of Soilent Green, without the twist. With explosive population growth, it's not an impossible scenario.

What's the question, though? Is it possible? Sure, anything is. Why insects, though? There are plenty of other sources of protein, and today vegans (for whom eating even insects is streng verboten) can build healthy diets, even if they have to work a little harder and be more conscious about it. Insects would be yet another level of inefficiency in the system: it's nearly always most efficient to get nutrients from the most base layer, plants (or fungus, whatever). If all you're going for is pure efficiency, plants do it all. You may want to kill yourself just to end the culinary misery, but we're not taking about pleasure or quality of life, only efficiency and base dietary needs.

Ok, but: you describe what glitches are in detail, which wasn't the question. OP clearly understands the concept behind evolution, despite using imprecise terminology.

You seem confident that there's no benefit to the light/sneeze reflex: why? Is that an authoritative answer, or just your opinion? Do we know the mechanism behind the reflex, and can we trace it to an origin, like the recurrent laryngeal nerve?

Isn't every system vulnerable to social engineering hacks?

This person Unicodes

Not a bad idea. It could be distributed, with innocent components assembled in any of his many factories, and then final mix in the nursery.

LogSeq has other note types; it's just the default is bullets.

LogSeq is about as future proof as you can get. Notes are stored in a directory tree as markdown files.

And, billions of dollars to have lackeys find you drugs. And private fucking jets to fly to countries with drugs, and bring you back drugs. And a bestie you bought a Presidency for, to keep the DEA from seeing your plane.

Motive, means, and opportunity.

Maven and later gradle, groovy and spring boot really made it more fun to use.

There is no better example of "to each their own."

I started programming Java professionally when it was still called "Oak." I was working at a University doing distance learning stuff and applets were incredible. They were also the thin end of the wedge, although I didn't know it at the time.

I watched over the years as a nice, concise, core library of a dozen packages swelled like a bloated corpse. The last core library book I contributed to was larger than War & Peace, a veritable tome just to describe the standard library.

And then tooling like Maven and Gradle came along, and frameworks like Spring Boot became unavoidable, and I found more of my time was spent not programming but trying to detangle some horrible maven build config. In XML. That's about the time I jumped ship.

My philosophy is: tooling is fine, but if it takes over the project so that it's impossible to build the project without it it's not tooling anymore, it's a framework - a platform - that you're locked into. You get to spend your time debugging issues with the framework, over which you have no real control, where your best hope is work-arounds and crossing your fingers that upstream fixes their shit before your work-around becomes permanently engraved into the build.

It's funny to me that what I saw as bloated distraction, a hateful corruption of simplicity onto layers of obfuscation that themselves became platforms needing maintenance and debugging, would have been a pleasant and even fun addition to the ecosystem.

Oh, yeah. This doesn't surprise me. There's barely any nod to accessibility, and all of that's in desktop functionality. A braille terminal sounds like an utter nightmare, especially with more recent, "modern" tooling that insists on colorizing output, or self-managing paging. Libraries like Bubbletea make for some pretty output, but it's downright hostile for screen readers.

This is an old problem, too. I can't count the number of times I've furiously wasted time cleaning up output from a program that insisted on using terminal color codes. And I'm fully sighted.

This is the candidate AIPAC bought. Hope they're happy.

Try it, it's good. There's a mobile app, for Android, at least. It's free; it only takes a little time investment, so low barrier for entry.

LogSeq is nice.

For this who don't know, it's well designed, in that it doesn't add bloat and obfuscation like a DB would; it keeps everything in a filesystem structure in markdown files. What's really nice is that this makes it something you can use with a plain editor, or with the application, or with the app on mobile; the app(s) add a lot of convenience functionality to the basic storage design.

It's a well-thought-out system, and I appreciate how clean it is, and how independent of the application the data is. I haven't looked at the code base, but I have a lot of respect for the developer must based on the design & architecture decisions.

And Chimera Linux (not to be confused with ChimeraOS, the GNUish gaming distro).

Ironically, Stallman himself is probably a prime motivation for Alpine and Chimera Linux, in a sort of "I'm sick of hearing this crap" way. Although it does say something about GNU that Alpine was also shooting for a distribution with as little bloat as possible, and it largely succeeded. For a long time, it was one of the most lightweight distributions around, leading to its popularity as a container base.

I have a feeling you're looking for something different, but: mine is a big todo.txt document that I open with fzf. I just add lines to it and tack on @keywords.

If your needs are more hierarchical and structured, I'd still try to stick with a plain-text and fuzzy-search based solution, and split stuff up into different files.

IMHO, you're starting from a good place (plain text files). Maybe you just need a little tooling for searching and keyword filtering.

Doesn't look like she's watching, so much as watching out. Maybe keeping an eye out for the beach cops, or sharks, or just guarding those sandals.

/s

And because white leather just looks awful.

I think... it took me a second... you're speaking as a religious scholar, not at all about how countries implement the rules, right? You're talking about your interpretation of the Quran, not what the Iranian government dictates, yeah?

She's choosing to not be murdered by cops or angry mob!

My first thought is to add a foreboding scythe.

Oh. Oh, this would have been delicious. It's not too late!