I've played Dwarf Fortress (since 0.31). I'm not in the least bit suprised. It is seriously addictive.
As for myself I've had way too many "I'll just...." then "oh damn it's 3am again".
Quite right too. The most important factor for me when buying a computer is that the sales droid is in an office. All those CPU, RAM and disk numbers are secondary to that.
A friend persuaded me to go on a date with a girl I wasn't particularly into. We went for a meal, then she wanted to go clubbing. But I'm not into that either, so she broke down in tears. I was pretty sure I hadn't said anything that bad, but then the story came out: her ex-partner had the same first name and job as me, and the meal and clubbing were his favourite things, but he'd been found dead in another country with his common law wife and kids, and the similarity to me was effectively his coming back from the dead to be with her again.
No there wasn't a second date. I haven't seen her since either. Neither have I taken dating advice off that friend since, although we are still friends.
Too right. Ain't nobody needs that "the most important commandment is to love others as yourself" crap.
Mine's mostly set on 22. When I feel cold I bump that up to 24, 26, maybe even 28. When I've done at the gym (multiple times per week) I want cooling down so I turn it down to 16 or 14.
Sure, but (a) that's how exegesis works, and (b) so are you if you're extrapolating anything beyond Paul's statement. He cannot permit or refuse anything now because he's dead.
OK, so why the phrase "workers own the means of production"? The plain English interpretation of that phrase is substantially different from the workers not owning the means but receiving the profits.
Reminds me of the time I had to explain to a friend that twat was not a synonym for twit.
Sounds great and all but I always wonder how that works out in practice. It's not like a miner owning his own pick. Wikipedia says Apple has assets of $352.58 billion and a workforce of 161,000. That's about $2.2M per employee.
If a worker were to leave Apple, what would happen to their share? Would they be forced to sell it back to the other employees? After all, they would then be a non-worker and no longer eligible to own any of the company. Assuming they sold their complete share at the full value would they then keep that $2.2M?
If a new worker were to join Apple, how would they acquire their share? Would they have to find $2.2M before they could start? Or would their ownership build over time, and at what rate? How long would it take for their share to build?
If a company were to have a bad year where operating expenses exceed income, would the workers be paid anything? Or would those in trouble have to sell some of their share, and to whom?
Yes and no. Everywhere "Western" has an extradition treaty with the USA so there's no point fleeing to any of those. Russia isn't a great choice but if he values his freedom it's probably the least worst option.
But you DO have a PhD. Claiming it is somehow not valid is a criticism of the establishment that awarded it to you. You're just suffering from impostor syndrome, that's all.
Also, no employer will consider someone fresh out of education, even someone with a PhD, to have vast quantitites of useful real-world experience, so even declaring a PhD won't see you land your first job with the expectations that you'll ace every bit of it from day one.
It's good that you realise you know nothing. That is both accurate and useful. But don't take it too far. What your PhD proves is that you have an ability to learn, understand and communicate, and THAT is what employers are looking for.
For extra points, write some random almost coherent stuff, ROT13 it then steganographise it into those dick pics.
There are in fact at least two alternative explanations on this: (1) Paul is issuing a general decree that in absolute terms means women must never have authority in any situation ever at any time; (2) this is a local issue specific to Israel at the time because Jews believed women shouldn't have authority, and the Church allowing them to would bring it into disrepute, so this was fitting in with the local society. The second interpretation also ties in with Paul's "all things to all people" teaching. Also Paul in other places specifically notes the difference between "I, not the Lord...", and "The Lord, not I...", and this line states "--I-- do not permit...", suggesting this is from Paul rather than an ultimate directive from above.
It's like one of those irregular verbs. I've got a cool fantasy, you're a pervert, he's in jail, etc.
Sounds like it's not just me that goes "ok then, try arguing with this" when power cycling an unresponsive computer.
Not everyone is immune to swearing; I don't see any point in causing unnecessary offence; and they contribute nothing to the meaning, except perhaps voicing a level of emotion which can be better expressed in other ways.
How are slavery reparations fair?
This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states "the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries".
The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That's 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.
Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?
When I've paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?
Isn't this just a country that isn't doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying "oh there's this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling"?
Shouldn't payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?
(Please don't flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don't know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)