To all the decaf haters: If you drink decaf, you actually like the taste of coffee without needing the caffeine. That’s someone with taste, in my book.
Opinions, such as “all methods of decaffeinating coffee are blasphemy” are subjective in their very nature. What makes this more obvious is that the definition of blasphemy is entirely subjective and can’t even begin to be assessed objectively until at very minimum a religious dogma is declared for the basis of evaluation.
Okay… Which one? It’s pretty clear that decaffeinated coffee violates no religions that I’m aware of… And in fact for some religions would be the only allowable way to drink coffee. And if you argue that I just meant in general that it is a slight on to any God then how would you interpret that as anything other than humor or sarcasm?
Do you always feel like a victim or is it just when you aren’t caffeinated enough?
That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
I’m claiming that the accusation or blasphemy presupposes a frame or reference. In this frame of reference, you can make objective statements. Not that this frame of reference is absolute.
In your line o reasoning, velocity would be subjective.
This is the silliest shit I’ve ever discussed on the Internet. I will say kudos to you for keeping things mostly amicable. It’s been awhile since I’ve had an argument on topicality and it’s been entertaining for me. Thanks my friend, best wishes.
Yeah, well for many of us it's decaf or no coffee due to health issues. You acting like it's a foolish, childish thing is just tribalism/elitism.
And for what it's worth, I'd put my decaf vs your coffee in a heartbeat. A good roaster with quality beans is great coffee, decaf or no. Just like Hoffman said.
You say "no one knows coffee better than he does", while blatantly disagreeing with his entirely empirical points in his video on decaf, that it can be made by several processes, all of them are fairly good, and the result can be masterful?
I live in a hockey capitol. That makes me nothing like an expert. Same for you.
Okay, so you make brilliant decaf. That means your point in this thread is moot?
Funny thing on that "subjectivity" is when you disagree with other people in this thread, you've plainly said they're just entirely wrong.
When someone disagrees with you, you hide behind "subjectivity".
Yikes this is getting drawn out and silly, eh. I’ll save us some time.
You win.
But one thing that I couldn’t help but chuckle at is your interpretation of the coffee capitol point.
You live in a hockey capitol. That doesn’t make you an expert, but I bet if you wanted to buy a hockey stick you would have a number of stores carrying top gear… If you wanted to see a game you probably have a number of hockey teams from pro to amateur you could go watch live.
I have direct access to three of the top 20 roasters in the country. I’m fortunate to have access to some of the best coffee in the world regardless if I’m an expert or not.
And this is sort of the point overall… You added so much of your own arguments to my position that you aren’t even arguing with me or the points that I’m making.
I’m not hiding behind subjectivity, I was the one who posted the video “negating” my so called “opinions”. You still think I did that as a mistake. Which I think is the second example that shows you are coming to this discussion in bad faith.
It’s no wonder you recommend introspection, given you have been arguing only with your interpretation of my opinion.
Like I said, you didn’t watch the video. Hoffmann clearly stated that decaf coffee can be made well. It is a documented fact that he said that, no subjectivity required.
So how is the other person “stretching” when they claimed he said it?
How do you gather? You think there isn’t many ways to decaffeinate beans or that some of them aren’t gross? Or that most ways used to decaffeinate beans doesn’t make the coffee taste bad?
These are the very points James makes in the first 2/3rds of the video.
The only point that he and I might delaminate on was that all decaf is blasphemous, and that’s a stretch because he never talks about the religious criminality of drinking coffee?
Why do you think I would offer a video to people about decaf that I didn’t watch? Hint: I don’t hate decaf coffee.
I’ve heard that before recently, but tbth I really don’t want to mess with my system rn (barring updates), it mostly acts as a server lately sense I got my SteamDeck and that’s probably how it’s gonna stay as I really want to avoid accidentally breaking anything for the time being
When I get my batch 2 framework order I’m going to be a lot more willing to learn adout and experiment with Wayland, just becouse I know whatever I do on that it won’t interrupt what other people are doing who are connect to the aformentioned server on my older machine
Will I upgrade my other computer to Wayland? Maybe eventually after I’ve learned more about it and played with it some, but for the time being it’s just gonna stay as it is
And that’s a totally valid approach. I didn’t want to push anyone into Wayland, i’ve dragged my X11 setup with me for as long as i wanted. I just wanted to show that NVidia is not the barrier anymore.
I disagree. When I used it recently it was still very much subpar compared to the AMD experience. It’s usable, but not to the point that I would like to use it.
I’ve only recently joined the dev world and I saw this post in the morning. Late this afternoon I’m doing a deployment that fails, couldn’t determine the cause as I’m a noob, before bothering a more senior dev for help I run it again… It worked.
A Chevy dealership in Watsonville, California placed an Ai chat bot on their website. A few people began to play with its responses, including making a sales offer of a dollar on a new vehicle source: …slashdot.org/…/car-buyer-hilariously-tricks-chev…
I think this vastly depends on if there’s malicious intent involved with it, and I mean this on both sides. in the case of what was posted they manipulated the program outside of its normal operating parameters to list a quote for the vehicle. Even if they had stated this AI platform was able to do quotes which for my understanding the explicitly stated it’s not allowed to do, the seller could argue that there is a unilateral mistake involved that the other side of the party knew about and which was not given to the seller or there is very clear fraudulent activity on the buyers side both of which would give the seller the ability to void the contract.
In the case of no buy side manipulation it gets more difficult, but it could be argued that if the price was clearly wrong, the buyer should have known that fact and was being malicious in intent so the seller can withdraw
Of course this is all with the understanding that the program somehow meets the capacity to enter a legally binding agreement of course
also fun fact, Walmart had this happen with their analytical program five or so years ago, and they listed the Roku streaming stick for ~50 less so instead of it being $60 it was listed as 12, all the stores got flooded with online orders for Roku devices because that’s a damn good deal however they got a disclaimer not soon after that any that came in at that price point were to be Auto canceled, which is allowed by the sites TOS
In my opinion, we shouldn’t waste time in the courts arguing over whether a claim or offer made by an algorithm is considered reasonable or not. If you want to blindly rely on the technology, you have to be responsible for its output. Keep it simple and let the corporations (and the people making agreements with a chatbot) shoulder the risk and responsibility.
Was working on a server where I did not want to put some dumb command into the history, so I add a space like you do. Press up. The command is there. The fucking insult I felt.
What? Revolver rounds absolutely do have shells if you mean in the sense of synonym for casing, or if you mean in the strict military sense then usually they don’t, but they’re just as capable of firing small shells as any other modern firearm.
I mean in the technical sense, so shells ≠ cartridges, and sure they might be capable of it, but it is not really a thing that happens often enough for it to be a normal thing.
I guess, it just seems odd to me to correct a meme for using a term in way that’s absolutely vital for both the rhyme and the pun to actually happen and not even really wrong, just weird if you over-analyze it.
One that is designed for revolvers, not shotguns? (And yes, I know about revolver shotguns, but those are mainly just a gimmick and not really ever used in most contexts. I’m talking about handgun revolvers.)
Okay. I see the problem here. Shell doesn’t mean shotgun round. Bullet and shell are technical terms for the bit of a round that comes out of the business end of a weapon at high velocity. A bullet is a single, simple solid mass that follows a ballistic trajectory and just imparts kinetic force into whatever it hits. A shell is anything more complicated than that. Shotguns are just the small arms weapons that are most likely to use shells, but anything can, and it doesn’t have to be buckshot to be a shell. Even something as simple as a tracer round is technically a shell.
Git is a program your computer runs to have a single folder have source control. It does all the hashing and commit chaining that you’re used to, branches, that sort of thing.
But if you want it to be on more than one computer, you need to do this complicated “Bare” repository setup on a server computer to do the “git push” stuff you’re used to.
Most people, being too lazy to learn bare repositories and the general sysadmin necessary to host a git server themselves, instead just use Microsoft’s Github which is a web interface for the server use of git the program.
Microsoft then proceeded with their classic mantra of “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” and started slapping on more and more features that are incompatible with any other git hosting service: actions, CI, their web VSCode instances, etc. That’s all in GitHub too. But it’s all just web interface for git the open source program, at the end of the day.
I like shitting on M$FT as much as the next bloke but if you believe Github started being evil when Microsoft entered the picture then your memory is pretty awful.
From it’s inception github pushed proprietary tagging and issue numbers that have no meaning outside their platform and a difficult export process to trap projects - especially commercial ones - on their platform.
I was being diplomatic because I was uncertain how people felt about the issue and PR tracking, considering how Bitbucket and GitLab replicate it. Felt simpler to focus on the since-M$ft egregious steps.
I remember moving a project from github to gitlab years ago (before MS) and the process to move all the non-git data from github was just as easy as moving the git repo itself. Thanks to gitlab’s efforts perhaps, but I didn’t expect github to have made it difficult for them based on the experience I ended up having.
Just a few comments on this. Most people aren’t “lazy”, they just understand that the effort to run a bare repository is greater than basically any other solution. Also your incompatible features list implies that other git repo sites (gitlab, codecommit, bitbucket, etc) don’t have their own form of proprietary stuff that you have to learn. In fact the newest version of gitlab actually changes their web ide into vscode web, because of the obvious, it is much better than their old ide.
C# is about right. LINQ was meant to make things easier, or at least the code easier to read. Instead, you gain this addiction to seeing how much functional logic you can fit into one line of code (or a single multi-line query) while still remaining readable.
programmer_humor
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.