Lol yeah, I should have included that the emotional immaturity was such that they believed wanting revenge on a group for things they had nothing to do with or for reasons of jealousy/envy was normal. It was an attempt to continue your joke that the story creators were didn’t even have the logic to consider that angle.

Or they were smart enough to make up horrifying stories that would stick with people and prevent them from doing dumb shit like going to play in a swamp and just saying “don’t play in swamps” will make some people even more likely to play in swamps to prove they can.

They come from a time before people realized that revenge was an endless cycle. Like the old testament was full of that, where good and evil were mostly framed in terms of “good people are us, evil people are our enemies, and it is good to cause suffering to the evil people. Also, sometimes circumstances make one of us evil, until we stone them or something”.

And AI is going to put that into overdrive.

For a little while, I helped with some intern and recent grad interviews and holy shit some people didn’t have a clue. Had one guy on a remote interview that had a friend there helping him answer questions. It was obvious because he didn’t even mute his mic and we could hear them. And it was extra pathetic because his friend wasn’t even feeding him anything useful, like Bevis was helping Butthead with a software engineering interview.

We had a short break and when we resumed, he had at least figured out to mute his mic between questions (not that that helped, as muting yourself frequently when you’re one of the main speakers in the meeting alone is a red flag without some reason that should be obvious when it isn’t muted). Only resumed because I was fairly new to interviewing, if I got one of those today (and still did interviews), I would have ended it early.

Yeah, I guess it depends on the context. I’ve just always interpreted it as being more about how great the other person is instead of saying anything about the other person. Like that luck could be lucky the timing worked out that you were both available when you started seeing each other. But I can see tones that make it all about the other person instead, deserved or not. So whether that line is a red flag or not does depend on context.

The first seems reasonable, until the reasoning is given, which reveals the whole message is batshit.

Though IMO someone getting upset at being told they are lucky to be with the person they are with is kinda full of themselves and reading way too much into it. It’s more of a “I wish I was in your place without stating any intention to usurp it” than a “you don’t deserve to be in that place and must be there because things outside of your intent or control got you there”. It’s more non-threatening flattery towards your partner (as opposed to just flirting with her) than anything else and I’d consider taking offense at someone saying that to be a red flag even before he went off the deep end.

It predicts the fragile ego stuff that follows rather than contrasts IMO.

There’s another layer to this:

First layer is “the question is about whether or not you’ll steal”.

Second layer is “the question is worded in such a way that yes is the only truthful answer”.

Third layer is “will you lie anyways to protect yourself and your job?”. Like guessing that the manager would rather deal with liars on their staff than people who might blab about shit that can get the manager in trouble. They want people who will prioritize the job over following labour laws to the letter.

Or just hang out with them all the time, mostly being nice, so they get used to not running away and we don’t have to find or chase them when we are hungry.

How about a science experiment. Boil some water and then rinse an eye with it each 10 C as it cools down and compare the short-term, medium-term, and long-term results. You’ll need lots of eyes so recruit your family and friends!

That is actually how those ones were named. WD stands for water displacer (or displacement), which is what WD40 does, not a lube but an oil that replaces any water where you spray (which can then act as a lube but it’s not designed to remain there long term). WD40 was the 40th attempt at developing a water displacer and it worked, so they stopped there.

I mean, there was a good chunk of that time where the doctors thought that bleeding someone to balance their humors was a valid treatment for a variety of things. Some things were treated with amputation with only alcohol as an anesthetic (and disinfectant, if they happened to splash some on the wound).

I’ve got one of those bulbs but it comes apart so you can see and clean the inside. It’s also transparent so you can see inside it even if you decide to be lazy.

You ask the question while demonstrating why she did so.

(Attention)

I’ve decided I’ll compromise and give it up for an EV, probably for my next car, assuming I can get a Chinese one (would have never expected to say something like that just a few years ago).

Though maybe if my current car dies before I can do that I’ll try to get a pre-18 MT something or another. Something without touch screens and outside connections other than AM/FM radio.

Though the kid inside me also wants a fun car since I can now afford it might just rent a Ferrari or something for a few laps around a track to get that out of my system. Probably an or something since the top end cars don’t even come with MT anymore. I don’t even care that stick shift isn’t peak performance anymore, it’s more fun and using a clutch is engaging (heh).

I think covid might have put a pin in anyone planning to try to take the world using a virus. Two main problems:

1. Once the virus is out in the wild, it is out of anyone’s control. It will evolve in whatever direction it will. Maybe it will escape the vaccines developed to keep their side alive. Maybe it will just become less deadly before it kills off enough people to collapse the enemy’s base.
2. It looks like our immune systems are pretty good actually and those who get sick might just be the tip of the iceberg while most of the population gets immunity from asymptomatic infection.

These two items work against each other. If you try to make a virus that will infect the entire herd, it might be more likely to also be able to attack you regardless of what vaccines you have. If you try to make a virus that won’t be able to escape your vaccine’s immunity, then the herd might just develop immunity themselves and the virus dies out after only killing a small portion of the population.

So given that, I don’t think a weaponized virus is an effective tool to eliminate enemies with because it’s both too risky and too unreliable.

If you keep stacking them high enough with a perimeter strong enough to keep them contained, the heat and pressure would eventually get high enough to liquify the ones at the bottom.

Though it would be cool to do that and then set up microphones to pick up the house settling sounds and see if there’s a correlation. If only those with the resources to set that up could be trusted to not abuse that access to data because I wouldn’t consent to some data firm having access to mics in my place.

I hope there was a bee involved in that picture.

Try making a game. I think minesweeper might be a good one because it can be broken down into many different problems with different complexities. Like user input could start out as entering coordinates into specific cells to interact with a seperate grid, then you could switch to using an input grid where you enter a value into the cell you want, and then move on to clicking on cells like in the real minesweeper, including different behaviours for left, right, and both clicks.

Pretty sure you could implement a full version of minesweeper in excel, though even if you can’t get all the way, there should be enough low hanging fruit you can reach to learn a lot from the process.

Or if you’re feeling really ambitious, I think a realistic physics racing simulator is also possible, though I wouldn’t expect a lot on the graphics side of such a thing. Just lots of formulas that then get used to simulate a car accelerating, braking, and turning. But this one might also be great to get started with because you can start with a simple model and add complexity from there.

No, I’m saying the ones who say it’s evil to bring kids into this world are hypocrites if they themselves want to keep existing in this world but think a child couldn’t possibly want to exist in it.

Like anti-natalist, not just child free. I don’t think anyone has a duty to have kids and think not wanting kids is a great reason to not have them. I even disagree with doctors who refuse to sterilize people who would rather remove that possibility than keep the risk (and think the doctors should be shielded from any consequences when a patient later regrets that decision). I’d also call it fair if you said some people have no business having kids.

But there’s some people online who take that position to the next level and say that anyone having kids these days is wrong to do so.

It’s pathetic, considering how existence itself was a struggle for the past 3 billion years, then gets easier over the last like 100k, and now there’s new challenges and anti-natalists want us to just give up because it is hard?

And inconsistent because they don’t want to give up themselves, but want everyone else to not give future generations a chance.

And I didn’t say they should kill themselves, but if they believe existence is so painful and hopeless that creating new life is wrong, why haven’t they? Though that “if they are serious about it” is the crux of my position: I believe they are being dramatic or overcompensating for those other assholes that insist having kids is our only purpose and that everyone should have them and gets in their business about not wanting kids themselves.

I also believe that kids born during a collapse will probably have an easier time handling it (emotionally) than those of us who got used to life before a collapse. It’s just hard to say if that will apply to kids born soon or if it won’t be the case for some decades yet.

A variation of this that I realized fairly recently is that striving for excellence doesn’t mean the journey towards it is garbage. I can both feel pride in what I’ve done while also acknowledging where it could have been better with the intent to either circle back and do it better in the future (for like house projects) or avoid that mistake next time (for creations).

Like I did a cross stitch of a wolf and it skewed a bit because it had a lot of half-stitching (without going into too much detail, a full cross stitch equalizes the forces the threads put on the canvas while a half-stitch puts an uneven force on it). So for my current one, I got hoops that I previously didn’t think I needed, which hold the canvas in place outside so the threads are less likely to put a high force where they are.

And my next one will involve a better ordering strategy because my fairly random approach caused some areas of the canvas to bunch up more than others. Less noticeable than the wolf’s skew, but still a flaw I’d like to fix going forward but I’m not beating myself up about the current one.

Assuming this is even relevant to the context you mean lol.