my_hat_stinks

dumb enough to think that something you just thought of without any research is valid and also dumb enough to think sharing that online is a good idea.

Do you know what community you’re posting in?

You can disagree with someone without being an ass, this was uncalled for.

You mean like all the things in the link OP posted which you scrolled past just to be an ass in the comments?

So your suggestion is instead of any attempt at regulation people should just boycott a company years after they’ve already given that company their money, despite the fact that you admit n even more ideal circumstances boycotts still do not work?

That sounds like superheated water to me. When you heat water in a microwave it can reach temperatures above 100C without boiling, if you disturb the water in that state it boils instantly and explodes.

The entire premise of your comment is absurd, but let’s assume for a moment we really do live in a world where a legal process can’t be used unless it’s successfully been used for widespread change before; what other action do you suggest people should take?

Plenty of words mean the opposite of themselves, so much so that there’s multiple words for it; autoantonym, contranym, or Janus words.

This morning my alarm went off so I turned it off.
I wanted to buy a new console as soon as it was out but they were all out.
Two people were left so I left.
I fought with Bob over chores, but I fought with Bob in the war.

Sort of, but but really. You’re right that historically the daylight hours set an upper limit on the amount of work that can be done per week for most types of work, but that limit is far higher than 8 hours per day over 5 days. The 40 hour work week is based on unions fighting for a 40 hour work week. If it wasn’t for the unions you’d be working all day every day except Sunday, for religious reasons.

That might change over the next few decades too, the current fight is for a 4 day work week and studies are showing promising results there.

The question reads like an XY problem, they describe DB functions for data structures so unless there’s some specific reason they can’t use a DB that’s the right answer. A “spreadsheet for data structures” describes a relational database.

But they need rectangular structure. How do they work on tree structures, like OP has asked?

Relationships. You don’t dump all your data in a single table. Take for instance the following sample JSON:

  "users": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "name": "Alice",
      "email": "alice@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "The Witcher 3",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.8
              },
              {
                "name": "PS4",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["RPG", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Minecraft",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2011,
                "rating": 9.2
              },
              {
                "name": "Xbox One",
                "release_year": 2014,
                "rating": 9.0
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sandbox", "Survival"]
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "name": "Bob",
      "email": "bob@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "Fortnite",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.6
              },
              {
                "name": "PS5",
                "release_year": 2020,
                "rating": 8.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Battle Royale", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Rocket League",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 8.8
              },
              {
                "name": "Switch",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.9
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sports", "Action"]
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

You’d structure that in SQL tables something like this:

The dbo.favorites table handles the many-to-many relationship between users and games; users can have as many favourite games as they want, and multiple users can have the same favourite game. The dbo.platforms handles one-to-many relationships; each record in this table represents a single release, but each game can have multiple releases on different platforms.

Usually no, unless I’ve left a reply disagreeing then someone else comes along and downvotes them, makes me look like an ass who downvotes anyone I disagree with. I also check my own comments to see if people agree with me but I’ll keep the comment up either way, if I do change my mind I’d rather leave a new comment or add stuff in an edit.

It’s not too difficult to bot votes on lemmy so they’re even more pointless than they are on reddit.

This specific case isn’t really to do with the evolution of language, more just ineffective linguistic prescriptivism. Some guy 200 years ago decided they didn’t like how “less” had been used for the past millennium so they made up a guideline for what the preferred (like what you just said) then people decided to treat that as an actual rule. Obviously it’s still common to use “less” that way even after a couple of centuries of people trying to enforce that rule, it’s a good demonstration of how prescriptivism is a waste of time.

Strangely enough, in my experience many prescriptivists who rely on etymological arguments are fine with language changing for this one rule. Makes me think they never really did care about historic usage of a word.

Alice: So, how do you identify?
Bob: Normal.

What’s the odds Bob’s a bigot? Someone asked how to describe their sexuality, “normal” is not a useful answer.

Fuck that, that’s implying any other orientation is abnormal. People should have the right words to describe their sexuality.

Thanks for downvote, but your response is still somewhere between unhelpful and a dog whistle.

The British monarchy primarily “provides” money by owning land and other assets which would otherwise be government-owned. They also “earn” a shitload of money just for existing and still dump significant expenses onto taxpayers.

First paragraph of the article:

Earlier this month, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement added Microsoft to its list of priority targets due to the company’s intense entanglement with the Israeli military via Azure cloud and AI services. Specifically, BDS called for supporters to boycott Xbox, including Game Pass, individual games, and future purchases of consoles and peripherals. Now, in a show of solidarity, indie label Ice Water Games has removed one of its projects, open-world tactics RPG Tenderfoot Tactics, from the Xbox store.

There is no middle ground between binary options. You have rights or you don’t. You hate or you don’t. “Just a little bigotry” it’s still bigotry. If I say 1+1=2 but you say it’s 3 that does not make the right answer 2.5.

Your worldview is literally the middle ground fallacy.

Supporting human rights isn’t in any way “gaslighting”. It’s very reasonable to ban someone for being a piece of shit.

Absolutely, I just meant to point out that there’s far more blatant examples so no need to couch your language in phrases like “some have said”. Goblins have been antisemitic caricatures in fantasy for a long time so it’s easy for a bad writer to just regurgitate existing tropes, meaning a racist writer can use that as a shield, but it’s much harder to justify naming your black character after slave imagery.

The globins follow a lot of harmful Jewish stereotypes but I’m not sure it’s obvious whether they’re intended as racist caricatures or if it’s just bad writing. It’s not unreasonable to assume that though when you put it beside much more blatant examples, such as calling the black guy “Shacklebolt” and the Asian girl “Cho Chang”.

Wow, what the fuck. I have honestly no idea what about my username or post history could have made you so hostile. The last sentence you’re complaining about is literally a tldr of the rest of the comment; everyone’s talking trends between generations and you’re dismissing that (and complaining about entire subsequent generations) based entirely on one person’s individual experience.

Nobody has ever claimed that every gen x owned a home. There have always been people who can and people who cannot afford a home, but each generation has more people in the can’t-afford group than the previous. At 30, more genx owned a home than millennials, and more millennials than genz.

The problem you’re having is that everyone else is talking trends and you’re talking personal annecdote.