gedhrel @ gedhrel @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

242

Joined

2 yr. ago

There appears to be something of a rebrand to "Yvette Cooper".

I'm not quite sure why you fetishise a bit-for-bit over semantic equivalence. Doesn't it turn "it works on my machine" into "it works on my machine as long as it has this sha: ... "?

Yes. Any normal person would be in it for the Gwent.

Concessions, or sinecures?

I am no messenger.

But I do bring you a message:

the message - of death!

If the claim is that his obnoxious behaviour is nothing to do with his drug habit, I'm prepared to accept that.

Now you mention it, the Mars thing was - and continues to be - another unscientific pipedream. The examples I gave were all plainly stupid and/or disgusting at the time.

Sexually harassing his employees hit the headlines in 2016; rumours before that. Inserting himself into the Thai cave rescue and the "pedo guy" slander was 2018. Hyperloop was 2013. No Lidar on Tesla. If you've been paying attention he's been outing himself for a long time.

It'd be nicer to see tagged unions first, with the machinery for those, and then take steps to provide a semantic fix for error handling.

The "satisfaction" is probably novelty. UK/EU, nobody thinks about it.

I think there's a kind of fetishisation of manual transmission in the US. Like your emergency scenario: I guess if you need to accelerate away from 30-50 feral hogs then you might welcome it.

"Lead with the foot that is going down" is missing from this.

You typically learn to feel the accelerator and brake with one foot but just engage the clutch (ie, all the finesse is letting the clutch out). But you know this. All your muscle memory works like that. When you switch to automatic, just use the one foot and it works much better.

You have probably already worked that out but it's handy advice if you're a passenger in an automatic with a first-time driver who is used to manual.

Yeah, there's no need to trade insults!

I think that's the point. It doesn't stop the occasional chancer from trying, but no this side of the pond at least you'll get short shrift if you do.

The whole thing is about limiting liability to the company. (In the pregnancy case I think there's an increased risk of thrombosis at late-stage.) Their policy says no paperwork is required, you say that applies to you; if something goes wrong after you lie then the onus is on you.

I think by-and-large it's easier to get a positive response from someone face-to-face than over the phone, but on the whole people are pretty nice.

It's less the person and more the company policy. I've total sympathy for the person on the phone/behind the counter who's probably had a long and thankless day; I'm not rude or aggressive to people.

It annoys me no end that often, offers and services are gated behind "new subscriber" conditions - which is basically a tax on being conflict-adverse. You have to go through a cancellation process to get someone who can "look to see if there's anything they can do" and get the thing that's plainly available.

But I'll joke about it on the phone to whoever I'm talking to - the last time this happened (changing mobile phone contract) the chap and I were laughing about "come the revolution" at the end of the call.

Previously I've had someone on the phone claim that water being three feet higher at one end of a drain than the other wasn't due to a blockage; some people will "go the extra mile" for their employer. I think I got as far as "if your company's position is that basic fluid statics is wrong I'd be happy to take it to court, but you don't have a leg to stand on, so it'll be cheaper for everyone involved to just send the drain guy out," which is about as annoyed as I get.

There's no reason for someone in a phone zombie role to actually give a shit one way or another, but some kind of human connection helps. Even a sarcastic response can be delivered in a disarming way - attack the blatantly stupid kafkaesque nonsense, not the poor schmuck who's not paid to care.

I use "are you calling me a liar?" which is probably more effective in the UK than the US.

Some of the GoF patterns over-emphasise inheritance, but by-and-large, you don't build large systems without either using or rediscovering software patterns, whether they're OO, FP, or what-have-you.

No, it didn't.

Spot on, yeah. Although as pointed out just above, this wasn't actually Weizenbaum's position. But in an era of letters to the editor, perhaps using a little rhetorical trickery to preempt a two-month-long back and forth might be excusable. It's a strawman nonetheless; but this letter is a screed.