Dann halt so:

Es regnet, es regnet Blut
Es regnet den Spielmannsfluch

Hach, das hab ich auch lange nicht mehr angehört. Danke für die Erinnerung!

For the right jobs, it’s a good tool.

This isn’t the right job.

Sounds like they did the lookups by hand actually

cries in data analyst

Did you know our company is over a thousand years old, possibly even two? Recent dives into our digital archives have unearthed invoice records dated to the year 1021, though we’re also investigating the validity of one dated to 215.

Whoever decided to make dates a manual entry text field without validation should be forced to write SQL by hand, without syntax highlighting, autocompletion, syntax checks, reference or looking up stuff, querying a database with no schema or data dictionary.

Well, first of all, through God, all things are possible, so jot that down

Well, it’s ““This””, not “This”, so I’d say it’s fine.

It’s like that cartoon of the guy with a whole pile of cookies telling the guy with one cookie “Look out! That immigrant wants to steal your cookie!” You can substitute any other demographic for the immigrant - socialist, burger-flipper, victim of medical extortion - and it still works.

Sure, I want a cookie too. I look out the window of my ground floor (first floor for the US) apartment at my neighbour watching a beautiful sunset through the wide glass front or his fancy first floor living room (second floor for the US) that seems to be about the size of my whole apartment, and I want that too. I see another guy move his Mercedes from the driveway so he can drive his BMW today instead, and I want a nice car too. I hear a colleague cursing the bureaucratic bullshit of having to do the property taxes for both his own parents and his in-laws on top of his own, and I can’t help but feel a sting of envy at his luxury problems. I want property too. I want a nice cookie too.

But the critical word in all these examples here is too. My neighbour can have his apartment with the beautiful view, the other guy can have his cars (climate consciousness notwithstanding, we have bigger sinners to worry about), my colleague’s parents and in-laws can have their houses too, and it’s a wonderful thing that they have the support of someone helping them as they age and struggle with these things who also has experience from his own property. I don’t want to take these things away. Hell, even when I see my landlady’s constant vacation pictures that I know my rent is sponsoring, I don’t begrudge her that vacation (though I do resent having to pay rent). They can all keep their cookies.

But if a corporate CEO gets a multi-million annual salary and another multi-million bonus while I got a “generous” thousand for an internship, he can well spare a cookie or a thousand. And even he pales next to private investors earning - whether through dividends or through their stock value increasing - just as much without even carrying any degree of responsibility. At least the CEO still does some work, even if it doesn’t justify his salary.

To be clear, I still don’t give a shit about the small-time middle-class pension fund investor. They participate in a fucked up system and I wish their pension would be funded differently, but if their investment pays my wages, I’ll be content. Let them have their cookie. Hell, I’d even be content to let them have a second cookie, if that was the price for me and everyone else getting at least one.

I can cope with some level of inequality as a concession to the unfair and imperfect nature of humanity. It would still be better than having to pick up the crumbs off the table while watching as the big guy shovels another tray of cookies I baked onto his pile.

For anyone worried about their cookie: Let’s work together. Let’s topple the cookie-hoarders and distribute their cookies. Let’s get you another cookie. And if I have a cookie of my own, you don’t need to worry so much about me wanting to take yours. We all win.

Except the hoarders, but fuck them.

And if you’re not comfortable with people seeing you topless, just head further north, where there’s no people anymore

I think this leaves out the “epistemological imperative”, which I understand as the compulsion to use this specific language for the sake of being scientifically accurate. Particularly when dealing with peers, who will all too readily hold you accountable for inaccuracies, being precise is important, possibly even necessary to avoid the scientific community’s habit of tearing into any error to prove their own proficiency by showing up your deficiency.

I can’t find my source any more, unfortunately, but I read an article once about how students are essentially scared to have their writing torn to shreds because they were too direct in their assertions. I recall that it related an anecdote about birds on a movie set that were supposed to all fly away at the sound of a gunshot. Except they tried to fly away beforehand, so the solution was to tie them to the branch and release that wire when they were supposed to fly. Then the birds tried anyway, didn’t get anywhere, ended up hanging upside down and falling unconscious. When they tried again (after restoring the birds to consciousness), they released the wire… but the birds had learned that trying to fly away was unpleasant, so they just sat there instead. Why bother, if you go nowhere?

In the same manner, academics who write too clearly will end up getting bad grades, have papers rejected, essentially be punished for it. They may learn that, by carefully coaching their assertions, assumptions or just about anything that could be conceived as a statement of facts in a multi-layered insulation of qualifying statements and vague circumscriptions to avoid saying something wrong and show the acknowledgement that, like science in general, the causation they’re ascribing this phenomenon to is at best an educated guess and, while we can narrow down things that are not true, we can never be certain that things we assume are true really are and won’t be refuted somewhere down the line, making them look like morons…

I lost track of the sentence. Anyway, if you make mistakes, you’ll get attacked. Most people don’t like being attacked. So if you’ve been attacked enough, eventually you’ll either give up or adopt strategies to avoid being attacked.

Being complex and obscure in your phrasing makes it harder to attack you. And if it’s hard to understand you, people might just skim the points and not bother with the attackable details anway. If you notice that people who write in a difficult style don’t get attacked as much or as badly, you’ll adopt that style too.

Eventually, your writing is read by students stepping to fill your shoes. They may not understand why you write this way, but they see that many successful academics do. They may also experience the same attacks and come to the same conclusion. Either way, your caution has inspired a new generation of academic writers who will continue that trend.

Finally you’ll end up with a body of scientific knowledge that only experts can still navigate. They know to skim past the vagueness, indirections and qualifications, mostly understand the terms and can take the time to pick apart the details if something strikes them as odd. The common rube doesn’t understand jack shit. Your research may further the understanding of a small group of people, possibly see some practical use, but the general public can’t directly make any use of it.

I doubt many people actually pay that much for their meds.

They’ll go broke instead, eternally in debt, unable to save up enough or get a credit for, say, buying a house to save on horribly inflated rent prices, always living in fear of being fired and ending up homeless until they get arrested for not having a home to sleep in, sent to for-profit prisons at the expense of other taxpayers, possibly even put to work as a legal slave…

…but I can’t imagine the pharma company does actually get all of those 60k on average. Maybe 20k-40k - hardly enough to pay their shareholders, let alone their insurance subsidiaries’ employees for the soul-crushing job of listening to patients breaking down because the insurance won’t cover their child’s life-saving treatment for some reason rep, patient, doctor and executives all know is bullshit.

I think this is more of a raid than a genocide. The objective of the aggressor is to secure resources, not to exterminate the victim. And why would it? There’s no ideological conflict, it doesn’t need to claim land for its own tribe to live on, nor does it seek riches out of vanity. It just needs food, and to that end, it invades and robs the dwellings of its prey.

I don’t think it even cares about fighting the defenders. Would be kinda stupid to entirely annihilate its source of food too. Someone needs to survive to rebuild, breed and feed a new generation of food, after all. It just tears down the defenses, then absconds with its loot. Really, it’s more a form of exploitation, albeit cruel to modern sensibilities - robbing the young directly instead of the food used to nourish them as raids in human history would.

It doesn’t bomb the nests along with their contents, capture and abuse the inhabitants, then lay eggs in the ruins and accuse all who criticise its imperialism of being Antipernites.

(Yes, I spent too long on this, and there really isn’t any point in applying human morality to creatures that don’t have the sapience to weigh their actions beyond the drive to secure subsistence. I just came up with and liked the term Antipernites and wanted to use it, so I came up with an elaborate setup.)

I share your hope. I’m just offering the caveat that it might not go as quickly and smoothly as you expect (unless I’m reading your comments wrong - do correct me!)

It’s my perpetual gripe with many of those open tools that I love ideologically, but practically find lacking in some respects, typically UI/UX (including the pre-experience of the decision whether to use them). I don’t have all the skills or knowledge to fix the issues that bother me, as it’s often far eaiser to know what’s wrong than how to fix it.

I understand and endorse the philosophy that it’s unfair to demand things of volunteers already donating their time and skills to the public, but it creates some interdisciplinary problems. Even if capable UX designers were to tackle the issue and propose solutions or improvements, they might not all have the skills to actually implement them, so they’d have to rely on developers to indulge their requests.
And from my own experience, devs tend to prioritise function over form, because techy people are often adept enough at navigating less-polished interfaces. Creating a pretty frontend takes away time from creating stuff I’d find useful.

I don’t know if there’s an easy solution. The intersection between “People that can approach software from the perspective of a non-tech user”, “People that are willing to approach techy Software” and “People that are tech-savy enough to be able to fix the usability issues” is probably very small.

It’s so big that it can take a lot of bleeding before it dies. It doesn’t help that there is no significant enough consensus yet on an alternative.

It seems like some people are flocking to bsky, probably because it has better visibility and seems more accessible than Mastodon (“What’s an instance? How do I pick?”). Others are heading to Threads just because it’s there already.

If enough people move to some other platform to generate a critical mass, they’ll pull others too. Until then, inertia will keep X rolling a good while to come.

I prefer Mastodon to what is ultimately still a for-profit corporation (“public benefit” notwithstanding), but both are better than Twatter.

The value of distributed redundancy

Most furries are harmless. A few are creeps with no concept of boundaries. Some are particularly deluded Nazis. Like every group of some size, they have a certain percentage of scum. Depending on your standards, they might be weird, but I’ll take harmless weirdness over harmful normalcy any day, let alone harmful weirdness.

I do think he is unique, but also the prime specimen to show that not everything unique is valuable.