Being government-run, the store will obviously have:

• a poor selection of products leaving you with no choice
• ugly packaging meaning only the poors will go there
• long waiting lists for entry
• yearly, quarterly and monthly subscriptions, all required and renewed seperately, taking hours in a queue and three trips to the social services hq each to renew
• quotas on all items, groups of items and time limited - whenever one is passed the rest don’t matter
• no added value like delivery or good customer service
• no market research or innovation
• no incentive to do better or improve service
• an active loss of money due to bueraucratic ineficiencies

(Likewise, also spined it (almost) as much as possible.)

Paid luches are nice. But if I get the choice between $10.000 yearly more or paid lunches, obviously i’d go for the cash. It’s supposed to be a bonus (i.e. free), and not a way to cut corners and undermine your employees.

Maybe it does do the company some good in terms of retention, but counting on “I’ll save $6k if I spend $4k on lunches per person on average by cutting pay for new hires” is not a good strategy. Same for ping pong tables, horseraces, pizza parties and whatever else.

An interesting way to misspell “subscription”

deleted by creator

You have free will, but you also have chains that bound you.

Starting from the social order, you need money and other social relations (friends, family, bosses) to literally survive in the modern world - you’re not omnipotent.

Then you have the cognitive chains - stuff you know and understand, as well stuff you can invent (or reinvent) from your current knowledge - you are not omnipresent.

Then, as a consequence, without these two, you cannot be (omni)benevolent - you’ll always fuck something up (and even if you didn’t, most actions positive towards something will have a negative impact towards something else).

All these are pretty much categorically impossible to exist - you’re not some god-damn deity.

But does this mean free will doesn’t exist?

Hardly. It’s just not as ultimate a power or virtue as some may put it. Flies or pigs also have free will - they’re free to roll in mud or lick a turd - except for when they’re not because they do it to survive (cool themselves or eat respectively).

We humans similarily eat and shit, and we go to work so we have something to eat and someplace to shit. Otherwise you die without the former or get fined without the latter.

So that’s what free will is - the ability of an organism to guide what it’s doing, how, when (and, to some extent, even why) it’s doing it, according to its senses and sensibilities. It’s the process with which we put our own, unique spin on the things in our lives.

Being an omnipotent, omnipresent and (omni)benevolent would in fact remove the essence of what free will (with all its limits) is, because our actions wouldn’t have any meaningful consequences. It’d all just be an effective (what I’ll call negative) chaos - a mishmush of everything only understandable to the diety.

So in fact, the essence of “free” will is that it’s free within some bounds - some we’ve set ourselves, some we’re forced with (disabilities, cognitive abilities, physical limits, etc.). Percisely in the alternative scenario would “free” will cease to be free - because someone already knows it all - past, present future, local and global, from each atom on up. There’s perfect causality - as perfect as a movie. You can’t change it meaningfully - any changes become a remix or remaster - they lose their originality.

With the limits on our thinking which cause us to be less-than-perfect, they cause a kind of positive chaos, one where one tries to do their best with what they have on their disposal - as they say, you get to know people best at their lowest. Similarily, everyone gets corrupted at a high enough power level - some just do it sooner than others. So surely, at an infinite power level, not even someone omnipotent, omnipresent and (omni)benevolent all at once would be able to curb this flaw.

It’s a Linux subsystem for Windows. As in, you run Windows and within it run Linux. Thus Linux is the sub-system, while Windows is the “overarching” system. Therefore, it’s Linux running as a subsystem on a Windows machine. Therefore, a Linux subsystem on/for Windows.

<edit>

That was just setting the two viewpoints equal.

Now, to add why this one is more “correct”: when talking about Windows (or Linux or anything else fir that matter) subsystems, you don’t call the Windows file system the Windows subsystem for Files or the Windows subsystem for Networking or Linux subsystem for RNG - You call them the filesystem, the networking system or the RNG system. And since none of them get the “for host” suffix, it seems natural to assume it’s the guest system that’s the “sub” system, with the other one being the whole.

</edit>

The EU is not an alliance, since member states give up a good portion of their sovereignty to the bloc. It’s much closer to a “loosely bound US” than a “NATO on steroids”.

Tell grandma with Parkinson’s to “adapt”. While not as ubiquitus a disability as daltonism or blindness, interfaces should still cater to people with them.

When it’s kids adapting it’s fun. When it’s someone with tremors physically incapable of gently and precisely tapping the exact 5px, it’s just bad design.

I’ve yet to see an accessibility setting for this very valid usecase.

Fair. Although, I consider Microsoft’s market “Most laptops” since Apple kind of does its own thing and Chromebooks are ultra-low end laptops. Thus Microsoft gets ~95% of the market for themselves.

Personally, I’d say that’s a clear case of monopoly since MS controls this entire segment of “non-Apple, non-ultra low power laptop, PCs”, but you’re right - there are other players. The thing is, they have relatively tiny niches in which they thrive and in fact pose no threat to the monopolist.

But I now I see how you see it as an oligopoly, which is quite valid.

In practice. Technically, were M$ to go sue users left and right (or send those ISP-style “gotcha”, now pay up) emails.

Luckiy, M$ knows well enough that 90% of that userbase wouldn’t have too many qualms jumping ship if they got slapped with a huge fine, so M$ lets them be.

They value the high userbase more than a quick payout (and rightly so). However, there’s no guarantee that can’t change overnight (just look at Unity and before that, Adobe).

oligopoly

That’s a way to misspell monopoly, alright.

I’d say one point thirty-two. As others noted, much depends on geography.

Personally, I say the “actual” number up to 3 or 4 decimal places, with a lot of the reason depending on the specific context. If I had to asses, I’d say I say the “whole” number in over 50% of cases for 3 digits, and in about 10% for 4 digits. Anything over 4 decimal places and I fall back to individual digits.

It’s not meaningless - it moves the comment/post a bit higher for others to see on some sorting options. It just isn’t summated per user and obsessed over.

Physicist: All I see is a bunch of particles existing

I think it’s a design decision. Some high-level designer probably decided on cutting all the wires, so here we are. Shame they didn’t hear about markrt research or customer surveys.

Do timezones have anything to do with the problem at hand? They’re a shift of the clock to sync the clock with the Sun visually rolling across the sky. The inherent time is the same on the entire planet. Since it doesn’t really make sense to track the Sun’s relative position in the sky far enough away from it, they’d either default to UTC or the time on Earth of wherever in the US the death took place.

Error at or around “the”

I"m with you on copyleft, but if I had any connection to the project and felt the need to add a reaction emoji, it’d probably be a “thumbs-down” as well.

It’s not because I’m against the GPL, but because of the way the GitHub comment is written.

It doesn’t even say “you should use the GPL”, it says “you MUST say GNU doesn’t agree with you”. I’m perplexed.

Now, I respect the idea of GNU, but the way GNUers in general go about behaving themselves is perfect to alienate people, and this GitHub issue is a prime example. I don’t get it.

If people don’t know about GNU, tell them. Nicely.

If people have misconceptions about GNU, there’s nothing wrong with fixing them. Again, nicely.

The problem is, whenever I encounter GNU and however much I agree with them on key issues (which is at about 90%, my main gripe with them being Freedom 0), they just have a knack to get me, someone who is with them on most issues, annoyed at them. I can clearly see how someone who isn’t as alligned with them as I am gets equally annoyed and avoids GPL and GNU like the plague just to fuck with 'em (while fucking over everyone, including themselves). Not to mention ones into the libertarian stream, since you yourself covered that pretty well.

What the GitHub issue you linked that I keep coming back to shows is this GNU herd mentality of fucking over others unintentionally and in turn fucking over everyone. While they’re clearly better than the “libtards”, they still end up doing the same mistake.

They’re not that few and far between, as declining must be as easy as declining per the GDPR. Just report the transgressors to the national watchdog.

Yup. For me it renders fine (Thunder)