"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: [...] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead." —Jonathan Swift
The king's chariot cannot be stopped.
Maybe I can start building up savings if I work overtime by zoning out of movies and thinking about stocking the grocery store for half an hour...
Hell wait, if I just think about being Nvidia CEO, can I split Jensen's salary?
A friend brought up Greenland nuking somebody as a joke. And I imagined how disproportionate a retaliatory strike could be, quickly remembering though that the current population is less than 60,000 and that I'm almost certain I've seen figures of more than 60,000 nukes during the Cold War, so I imagined a retaliatory strike where literally every person in Greenland had a personalized nuke.
The research was done make sure I wasn't misremembering, that Greenland didn't at any point exceed 60,000 (thus necessitating a closer comparison), and that I'm not Senator Armstrong-ing this.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Something Happened, the other, far lesser-known work by Catch-22 author Joseph Heller. It's too apples-to-oranges to throw around "better", but I already love Catch-22 and still prefer Something Happened. It's considerably longer, but in my opinion, it's criminally overlooked.
I remember speculating as a (small) kid that the AI soldiers in Battlefront II's local multiplayer might be real people employed by the developer. Not the brightest child was I.
sudois telling the computer to do this with root privileges.chmodsets permissions.- Each digit of that three-digit number corresponds to the owner, the group, and other users, respectively. It's 0–7, where 0 means no access and 7 means access to read, write, and execute. So
077is the exact inverse of700, where077means "the owner cannot access their own files, but everyone else can read, write, and execute them". Corresponding700to asexuals is joking that nobody but the owner can even so much as touch the files. /is the root directory, i.e. the very top of the filesystem.- The
-Rflag says to do this recursively downward; in this case, that's starting from/.
So here, we're modifying every single file on the entire system to be readable, writable, and executable by everyone but their owner. And yes, this is supposed to be extremely stupid.
Basically what @[email protected] said: the idea is to be practicable. Here's a stream of disconnected thoughts about this:
- What you pointed out is actually consistent with how a disproportionate amount of vegans are staunchly anticapitalist.
- A cut-and-dry example of someone who's still vegan but eats animal products based on "practicable" is someone whose prescription medication contains gelatin with no other pill type; vegans aren't going to say "lol ok too bad bozo you're not vegan anymore".
- The core focus of veganism has traditionally been non-human animals with the idea that a reduction of cruelty and exploitation toward humans is, at most, peripheral. This is changing in my opinion, especially when questions like "vegan Linux distro" don't involve animals short of what the devs eat.
- Based on what you say (as someone else pointed out), a distro based solely on FLOSS would probably be regarded as "the most vegan" if that were ever measured by anyone (it never would be).
- It's a weird analogy, but after you're done using and purchasing products derived from animals, what's "practicable" from there is kind of like a vegan post-game. Many vegans, for example, won't eat palm oil because of how horribly destructive it is to wildlife.
- Growing all your own food is in that post-game area of "practicable". It's up to you to decide if that's practicable for you. It's up to you to implement that if you think it is or, if it's not, to maybe think about how else you can reduce harm with how you buy vegetables. It's up to you if you want to share that idea and help other people implement it themselves. It's widely accepted that it's not up to you to determine if it's practicable for others.
I would say that most vegans, even if they've never heard it, at least approximately follow the Vegan Society's famous definition:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Striking the parts that seem irrelevant to this specific question:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for [...] any [...] purpose [...]
Keep in mind that "animals" in that first part is widely treated as "humans and non-human animals". So you would have to decide 1) to what extent cruelty was inflicted to create the distro, 2) to what extent people and non-human animals were exploited to create the distro, and 3) if there exist practicable alternatives that meaningfully reduce (1) and (2).
That's because every company's strategy aiming to monopolize is to:
- Make a product that's genuinely better than what's on the market for some role. Sometimes by undercutting competition at a loss, sometimes by making things very convenient, etc.
- Once you're big enough, make sure as you keep growing that new competition can't pop up to challenge you. Kick the ladder down behind you, and make sure to start greasing the palms of lawmakers so they can't challenge you in step 3.
- Once you're so big that you've monopolized the market and can't be challenged no matter what you do (both because of ladder-kicking and because everyone uses you by default), do what you've been wanting to this whole time and go from "boiling frog"-pace enshittification to "welp, this sucks, but now I have nowhere else to go" enshittification.
It's why people who say "Oh, well I wouldn't mind it if X had a monopoly because they're way better than those other companies" are so painfully misguided.
- JumpDeleted
“Freedom of windows” 🤡
"Play has no limits, but your credit card does. Let's aim for that."
Betteridge's law in shambles
That's mainly why I'm curious to see specific examples: I've fixed hundreds if not thousands of typos and can't remember this happening, even long before I had much experience editing. I'm long past the point where I'd be considered a new editor, so any results I'd get now would be bullshit anyway short of violating the rules and starting a smurf account.
Regarding "in the clique", people give a shit about who's who a lot less than you'd think. Despite having 25,000 edits over 8 years, I've interacted with maybe three people in the top 100 by number of contributions (let alone even know who they are). I'm not a social butterfly on there, but I've interacted in hundreds of discussions when needed. Not only am I almost never checking who an editor is when I check their edit, but I maybe know 100 people total (orders of magnitude less than the pool of very active editors); even among the few people I'd consider acquaintances, I've had my edits reverted and reverted theirs.
The only instance I've seen of someone trying to play king shit of fuck mountain and not immediately failing is in our article for San Francisco, where they were insistent that there was a strong consensus for using only one image in the infobox instead of the usual collage we do in 99.9% of major cities. The image used was a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge in front of the San Francisco skyline – neither of which were represented well. They'd been shutting down ideas for a collage for years, and when other editors found out about this, it turned into a request for comment (RfC). Despite their now having 500,000 edits in about 18 years (this ought to put them in the alleged "clique" even though I'd never heard of them before) this swung wildly against them to the point of the RfC being closed early, and the article now has a (I think really nice) collage.
(TL;DR: the policy against trying to dictate the contents of an article isn't just there so we can say "but c it's agenst da rulez so it dusnt happin!!"; it's there because the wider editing community fucking hates that shit and doesn't put up with it.)
If you don't mind, I'd be interested to take a look and see what the reason edits got reverted. Obviously it's stale enough now that I can't ask anyone involved to not bite the newcomers or tell them why reversions they made may not be correct, but I'm still curious to see what kinds of edits by new editors commonly get reverted.
A good feature if you ever decide to edit again (on desktop, probably mobile too) is that in the source editor, there's a
Show Previewbutton. This renders out the page as if you'd committed the change. I said in another comment that almost 2% of my edits have been reverted in some way, and many of those are self-reverts. The only reason there are fewer immediate self-reverts these days isn't because I'm making fewer mistakes; it's because I've mostly replaced the "oh fuck go back" button with being able to quickly identify how I broke something (unless what I've done is unsalvageable).The other day during a discussion, a few editors started joking about how many mistakes we make. Cullen328 (yes, the admin mentioned in this post) said: "One of my most common edit summaries is "Fixed typo", which usually means that I fixed my own typo." The Bushranger, another admin, replied: "I always spot mine just after hitting 'Publish changes'... " And finally I said: "It feels like 50% of the edits I publish have the same energy as Peter watching Gwen Stacy fall to her death in slow-motion in TASM 2." Between the three of us is about 300,000 edits, two little icons with a mop, and over 30 years of experience editing. Not only will you fuck up at first, but you'll continue to fuck up over and over again forever. It's how you deal with it that counts, and you dealt with it well.
Inject whatever weird, obscure fucking drama this is into my veins, please. I know Bloodborne has an indie wiki; do the Souls games not have one?
There's fortunately no such thing as control of the page. Like I explained above, reversion is considered a normal but uncommon part of the editing process. It's more common at the outset for new editors to have their initial edit reverted on policy/guideline grounds but then have a modified version of the edit let through with no issue. In order not to not bite newcomers, experienced editors will often bite the bullet and take the time to fix policy/guideline violations themselves while telling the newcomer what they did wrong.
If you go to discuss the reversion with the other editor on the talk page and it becomes clear this isn't about policy or guideline violations (or they're couching it in policy/guidelines through wikilawyering nonsense) but instead that they think they're king shit of fuck mountain and own the article, ask an administrator. Administrators hate that shit.
That makes sense. "Probably over 20 years ago now" probably means that there weren't any solid guidelines or policies to revert based on, since it was only around 2006 that the community rapidly began developing formal standards. I'm betting a lot more reverts were "nuh uh", "yuh huh" than they are today. If you still remember the account name, I'm curious to see what bullshit transpired. If the watchlist even existed back then, someone probably saw a new edit, didn't like it for whatever reason (I have no capacity to judge), and hit the "nuh uh" button. (Edit: I bet it was 'Recent changes', actually; probably more viable in an era of sub-100 edits per minute.)
Something new editors get confused about (me especially; I was so pissed the first time) is that edits can be reverted by anyone for any reason. (By "can", I don't mean "may"; a pattern of bad-faith reversions will quickly get you blocked). Almost 2% of my edits have been reverted in some way, and plenty of those have been by people with 1/100th the experience I have (some rightly so, some not so much). Reversion is actually considered a very normal if uncommon part of the editing process, and it's used to generate a healthy consensus on the talk page when done in good faith. But the pertinent point is that reversions can be done by anybody just like additions can be done by anybody; it's just another edit in "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit(TM)". I remember reverting an admin's edit before (normal editing, not administrative work), and we just had a normal conversation whose outcome I can't remember. It happens to everyone.
For a municipal wireless network, I'm not too bothered with how OP describes it if it's accessed through Wi-Fi.
As someone who doesn't use these, the first things I think when I enter a home with them are:
OP, as the other comment said, keeping a relatively neutral smell hopefully is a good goal and then maybe add pleasant undertones later. Instead of trying to introduce positive smells (cook at home more often or grow some plants, and you'll get a bit of that!):
This isn't all-or-nothing: any of these will help with the odor, and that's the goal.