I love this thing where buying something has been replaced by buying an alterable, revokable license to access that thing. It lowers costs and adds flexibility for producers, which allows them to save money, and they pass that savings on to me in the form of higher prices and my shit that I paid real fucking money for just disappearing one day. Then they explain that I never really “owned” it despite the fact that they use the word “own” in the marketing material, because it’s also legal to use words that have known definitions in agreements and then later explain that you were actually using an entirely different, secret definition of that word that’s actually the opposite of what you very purposefully implied.

not my experience at all across 3 separate companies. Ime senior engineers are the highest level that still spends most of the day heads down most days, and that’s why I’m gonna stick it out at this level as long as I can.

your company has money for no one above mid-level engineers to be actually building the product?

rules aren’t there to be enforced, they’re there so that when you break them you take a second to think about why.

are you american?

tldr - you’ll just have to do the conversions in your head now because it’s useful to know where the sun is at different points on the earth when trying to communicate across those points.

the fact that the acronym for Coordinated Lunar Time is LTC tells you everything you need to know about how this will work.

throw new SameJokeException();

yeah, PascalCase is the worst

keep assuming legalization will lead to disaster no matter how many times it doesn’t

okay but the statement he made fits into a societal context such that the overall message being sent by a group of people that have Oktoberfest but make cannabis illegal is absolutely “cannabis bad, alcohol good”.

are you rich?

puts me in mind of the old guru meditation error messages that popped up in the stone knives and bearskins era of computing.

you know that the entire rest of the world is full of baby boys with foreskins and parents who clean them, right? is your argument really gonna be “it’s inconvenient for parents to clean their kids so lets just cut off a part of their body”?

how does cosmetic surgery make your child’s life easier/better?

to avoid putting men in that dilemma

There’s no dilemma at all. Every consenting person who wants cosmetic surgery should be allowed to have it, and no one who can’t consent to cosmetic surgery should have it forced upon them.

circumcising me was 100% the right choice

if you weren’t circumcised as a child you would go get it done today?

Here’s another question along the same lines - my friend when I was a kid developed gynecomastia, commonly known as “breast knots” when he was 14. They’re completely harmless, but they made it look like he had boobs. Cute little A cups on this otherwise very boy-presenting person. For some reason, no one thought it was “against God’s plan” or “mutilating his body” or “part of the gender agenda” when this 14 year old boy had a purely cosmetic double mastectomy. I wonder why no one batted an eye at a child receiving gender-affirming cosmetic surgery just because he wanted to in this particular case.

also fish and bread dup, which didn’t prove terribly popular and was quietly patched out

there’s no sensory input that can’t be faked, simulation theory is undisprovable, the only thing you can prove is that a simulation as accurate and consistent as this would have to be is indistinguishable from a basis reality and therefore the question is irrelevant.

but for thought experiment purposes I like to think that simulating a computer must always require more processing power than the computer being simulated has, and therefore as we develop computing technology and proliferate computers the likelihood that it’s all just an emulation layer on one big universe-computer diminishes rapidly.