Two sides of the same coin.

That uninstalling python2 bit reminds me of stories of users deleting their system32 folder to free up disk space.

Every accusation is a confession.

Edit: Ah should have read down before replying, but fuck it, it bears repeating.

I wonder if that was actually malware.

Trick is you don’t have to. Just start at any number and either go up or down, then go back and do the other direction when you finish the first one.

“Actually cancel my order, this make people tip to avoid an awkward interaction is bullshit and I’m not spending any money here.”

Not going to hold my breath that anything like this will happen in the current political climate, but yeah, that should be mandatory. Even ignoring the exploitive nature towards their customers, it creates a ton of unnecessary waste.

Maybe they want everyone to pronounce it with heavy sarcasm and mockery.

It wouldn’t be everyone but even if it was, so what? If no one is interested in seeing an opening band it doesn’t mean they should fuck with the schedule so they can make people watch them anyways just so they can get famous.

Not that I go to concerts at all anymore anyways because fuck the live nation/ticket master monopoly.

I disagree that that warning is reasonably clear. Even the comment that included it has the line of thought, where the user, not knowing what terms git uses thinks that they just did an action that is going to change each of their files. It makes sense that they’d want to discard those changes. That user then goes on with some snark about not wanting to learn any more about what they are playing with and that other programs would do the same, but “discard changes” seems like it would have a clear meaning to someone who doesn’t know git.

The warning says it isn’t undoable but also doesn’t clarify that the files themselves are the changes. Should probably have a special case for if someone hits discard changes on a brand new repository with no files ever checked in and hits discard on a large number of files instead of checking them in. Even a “(This deletes all of the local files!)” would make it clear enough to say what the warning is really about.

Yeah and even when they did face the Nazis, the Brits were still using WWI tanks (or not much better), which were slow, got stuck easily, and barely offered any protection. They got lucky the Nazis chasing them to the coast were ordered to stop and that the citizens with boats used them to transport them back to the UK or WWII might have ended very differently.

And then the fact that they were on an island and were the head of an empire that spanned the world gave them even more time and resources to play catch up.

Hitler was also very upset when the Brits started bombing Germany instead of just focusing on dealing with the Luftwaffe bombing them.

Well I’d assume Joker was lying and that each boat actually controlled their own bomb to fuck with the ones who didn’t press the button, because who would believe they didn’t press it? It would cause so much more chaos that way (actually max chaos might be to rig both buttons to blow up the prisoners, though I could also see reasons for him to rig up both to blow up the civilians).

I’m not even sure I’d be on the boat in the first place, though it’s easy to say that in hindsight, knowing how things turn out. I’d probably have made every effort to gtfo of Gotham earlier than that if I could.

But for an answer that doesn’t completely sidestep the question, I don’t know. It’s a prisoner’s dilemma and I know the optimal solution is if both sides trust each other, but I’d also have a hard time trusting both the other prisoner as well as the “guards” (in this case Joker) setting up the whole situation, knowing there’s no reason they need to be honest about the outcomes of each choice. Like even in the movie, Joker was going to just blow up at least one of the boats anyways when neither of them pressed the button.

Best bet would probably be to go for a swim.

What about you?

What’s going on in the second one for the strands to diverge like that, though?

Please predict that he appoints independent senator from Vermont that the DNC thinks is a joke and lost an election to avoid nominating to something important next.

While I do think positively of him, I’ll raise the counter example of Ronald Reagan.

Also press on the top of the knife instead of only using the handle. And cut it on an angle so it’s not trying to press down on the whole length at once. And don’t try to pull the blade towards the handle (which is usually the ideal way to cut) if you’re cutting that much cheese because it grips the entire length of the blade and that might have more force than the handle can handle (heh), like in this case.

Lubricating the blade could help, maybe use a nice chili oil to give the edge a bit of a kick.

If it’s water based, the temperature won’t go over 100 C. Ideally, you’d want to simmer it below that rather than cook it at a high boil. Then you’d just need to make sure there was enough water in it that it wouldn’t all evaporate off while unattended (though more accurately, you’d want enough water to prevent the bottom part from drying out faster than more water can replace it to avoid it burning on the bottom, though that’s not so much a safety issue as it is a quality issue). Or just cover it so that any evaporating water recondenses and ends up back in the stew (though this only really slows the rate at which you lose water, since the pressure buildup will force the cover open and let some steam escape and many covers have a hole to equalize the pressure, so still keep an eye on water levels if you do a long cook).

If all the water evaporates, then the heat can rise, potentially to a flash point of some ingredient, which would start a fire, which I’d think would be the main safety issue with a slow cook like that, assuming you maintain a safe temperature above 60 C.

For microbial food safety, cooking over long periods is safer than soaking, generally speaking. It depends on how it is prepared/stored.

Like canning or jarring could be considered a soak, but you need to seal the container (so no new microbes get in) and cook it in the jar (to kill off any microbes that were already on the food), or use another method that creates an environment hostile to microbes, like make it too salty or acidic.

Or another option is to deliberately introduce microbes that play nice with our guts and allow it to ferment, which is essentially allowing it to digest a bit outside of our guts. The idea there is that any new microbes that try to move in can’t compete with the existing colony and either die off or maintain a population small enough to not cause harm.

A long cook is basically maintaining the temperature that canning uses to kill off microbes without then sealing it away from new ones. New ones will arrive but then die due to the heat.

Note that some foods can break down into harmful compounds if cooked long enough or can contain harmful compounds that require a boil to cook off, like kidney beans. Also if the food already contains heat-resistant toxins, obviously cooking it for a long time won’t get rid of them.

She might be wearing a tube top. Need a wider angle to be sure.

Yeah, Idiocracy has this basic assumption that people are generally acting in good faith, even the ones with more selfish tendencies. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but didn’t someone else get frozen along with the MC and started out with a “fuck you, I’ll take care of myself however I need to” before later pivoting to a “we need to work together to save the world!”

Just like that Batman scene where the boat full of civilians and the boat full of criminals have the trigger for each others’ bombs. In the real world, I’d bet the guard that was handed the trigger on the prisoner boat would have pressed it almost immediately. And if he didn’t, there would have been a riot on the civilian boat to push it rather than a calm vote that decides against it, followed closely by the same thing on the prisoner boat. And many from both boats would have just bailed into the water rather than trust the other boat to not kill them. Joker would have been completely right in his prediction of how things would go. Especially in a city like Gotham. The catch should have been that the boats had their own trigger instead of each others’.

No disagreeing with the title or you have fragile masculinity!

If you don’t like urinals, don’t use them. If you say something shouldn’t exist when many people prefer to use it over the other options, expect pushback, even if it’s in a humorous context.

The comic feels like a joke here but the title feels like there’s some serious sentiment behind it, even if it doesn’t have any real intent to actually ban urinals.