Soon you'll be wearing my sword like a shish kebab.
Brexit was caused by British exceptionalism. The people who wanted to leave wanted to leave because they thought UK is so great that it could bend the EU. People who didn't want to leave did so because they believed UK already had a good deal with the EU (and they did) because the UK is so great. Polling data backs that up because if you start asking about making "concessions" to rejoin the EU that "Yes" to rejoin turns into "I'd rather not".
REFV2. If tomorrow there were another referendum on EU membership, how do you think you would vote?
- Stay out of the EU - 39%
- Rejoin the EU - 61%
EURO. Would the requirement to adopt the Euro as currency change your decision to rejoin the EU if you would vote to rejoin?
- I would still want the UK to rejoin the EU if adopting the Euro was a requirement - 35%
- I would not want the UK to rejoin the EU if adopting the Euro was a requirement - 9%
- I would only want to rejoin the EU if we were able to keep Sterling as our currency - 14%
- Would vote to stay out - 39%
As others have already pointed out, you can literally get the same result by using images as quotes. People could've been shitty even without the quotation feature because it's not the feature on the platform that makes it shitty, it's the people on the platform who decide to use it for a shitty purpose.
Not implementing a feature because morons may abuse it is not justification for not implementing a feature. It's like saying we shouldn't be able to reply to comments because someone might use that feature to directly send you hateful comments. Now, if the features primary purpose is (or primary use case ends up being) to use it negatively, then sure it shouldn't be implemented. But I don't see how quotation falls under this exception. In my eyes quotation is a net positive.
It doesn't turn the platform shitty and if there are good moderators it also prevents assholes from trying to turn the platform shitty.
Hypothetically you could have a separate "previous names" table where you keep the previous names and on the main table you only keep the current name. There are a lot of ways to design a db to not unnecessarily duplicate SSNs, but without knowing the implementation it's hard to say how wrong Musk is. But it's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about because we know that due to human error SSN-s are not unique and you can't enforce uniqueness on SSN-s without completely fucking up the system. Complaining about it the way he did indicates that he doesn't really understand why things are the way they are.
The goal is very simple, it's to get you to use Epic. The reason people buy their games on Steam is because people effectively have Steam start on boot. It's the default because "all" your games are there. You use gog or EA app or Ubisoft connect only if there's something that's not on Steam and you boot them up specifically to that one game.
So if you're Epic and you want to compete with Steam how do you do that? You grow the user's library to make sure they start up Epic instead of Steam and you get them in the habit of logging in. Both are accomplished by giving our free games.
It's probably not effective on the old timers who have 100+ games on Steam, but people like me are not the target audience. It's aimed at younger people who don't have a huge steam library and can't really afford to buy a lot of games.
Tldr: Epic is giving away free games to become the default store for the next generation of gamers.
Tech savvy would be to start your instances. Going through the process of picking an instance and registering there is no more tech savvy than registering with facebook or any other online site. The complexity keeping people away isn't technical, it's domain specific. People don't know how to choose an instance because they're not given enough information to actually tell instances apart.
I get people not wanting to see Checo in an F1 car, but I think it's a good move. Cadillac isn't going to be aiming at the WCC from the get go. They want to hit the ground running and they need a decent driver with a lot of experience to steer the team before they set their sights on trophies. Ideally that driver should also know what it takes to be a top team because I doubt Cadillac is looking to be just a midfield team.
If not Checo then who? I'm sure they tried to get Bottas but he wasn't interested. There's also Zhou but he's a worse option than Checo. Any other driver would most likely have to bought out and even then, how many drivers would even be interested in spending their F1 years building up a team only to get the boot once the team sets higher goals?
Checo is not a bad pick, he'll do a few years in the Cadi and when the rookie next to him has matured they'll replace Checo with a new rookie.
Atheism and agnosticism are two different things. Atheism is the rejection of a higher power, you believe there cannot be a higher power. Agnosticism is the acceptance of the unknown, you believe you don't know if there is or isn't be a higher power.
In a hypothetical scenario where higher power does exist and that higher power does something that becomes evidence of the existence of a higher power. An atheist would reject such evidence because a higher power cannot exist and the evidence would be contradictory. An agnostic would not reject such evidence because an agnostic is not rejecting a higher power and as such the evidence would also not be contradictory.
And in a reverse hypothetical, let's say we discovered all the secrets of the universe and found evidence of higher powers not being able to exist. A theist would reject such evidence because a higher power must exist and the evidence would be contradictory. An agnostic would not reject the evidence because the evidence would not be contradictory.
And I personally lean on the apathetic side of agnosticism. If there is a god (or gods) then there is a god (or gods), and if there isn't then there isn't. There's no reason to mull over something that has had no bearing on my life and if tomorrow we get irrefutable evidence for either side that's when I'll deal with that new reality. In the mean time there are better things to do.
I think you absolutely should care about the political opinions of the CEO considering it's a private company and the CEO most likely gets to dictate the political leaning of the company. It's not like Twitter turned to shit simply because Musk bought it. It turned to shit because (among other things) Musk made business decisions based on his political opinions.
You could argue you don't need to care because their political opinions aren't influencing their business right now, but don't you think it might be a bit too late to care when the business starts to reflect the politics of the CEO? For example if tomorrow Trumps wants to know the contents of your email and the CEO decides to appease Trump you might start to care about the political h
The one that came off the top of my head is Kynseed. It's kinda like a more gamified Stardew valley that loses a bit of that personalized Stardew Valley charm due to the breadth of different systems and minigames. The only obviously bad things to say about the game are that there are both too many different systems in the game (which makes some of them feel kinda shallow) and the game takes too much time getting you through the fundamental systems. But beyond that there's a lot of lore, the different systems work well together, the minigames are all polished, there's loads of content - I can't find a good reason why it's not a popular game, it just isn't.
Clearly you can't be bothered to address what I wrote so I feel like it's fair for me to not bother with you. The way I see it there's a very simple solution here. You can continue your little crusade of proper terminology and I'll tag you as "self-important hypocrite". After-all what's the point of continuing this discussion when you deliberately ignore what I wrote so you could bark back an argument I explicitly covered because I fucking knew you'd say it. You're not here to discuss, you're here because you can't be wrong and I'd rather stare at the ceiling than put up with that mindless shit.
I remember one time I had an informal work related sitting and my boss asked if I could come. I told him that I can't because it's my week to babysit the 2yo and he was "just bring him along, it'll be fine." So I took him along and then spent the rest of the night babysitting him because my child is a fucking force of nature. He doesn't tire, he will go wandering, he will touch everything and he will throw anything he can get his hands on. So when his nap time came and I had to take him home my boss said "I don't remember my children being that hard."
And that's when I understood that if you have no siblings you were a fucking menace as a child. Parents who have more children do so because they thought the first one wasn't that bad.