The funny thing is that this sort of happened. I don't know if it ever happened this lewdly, but I'm pretty sure folks would ship around portraits of themselves as a means of courting.
IANAH - I am not a historian
Knowledge!
I think that it's natural for people to think they admit when they're wrong, but it's also natural to not admit it. As humans we don't make decisions based on logic, we do it based on emotions. We then instead explain our decisions with logic. I think the usual way people's minds change is that they'll effectively be convinced of something but won't really admit or accept it (or even be consciously aware of it), but then the next time the topic comes up they'll have the new opinion.
I've got one sitting by my TV, haven't ever used it. I'll fiddle with it today to see how high it can measure.
I thought you webdevs were good with implied semicolons because of JavaScript lol
It just feels really baseless to me. Have you read their terms of service? I'm sure there are other similar things in there. Like most terms of service there are parts that say they reserve the right to remove things for reasons not specifically listed. For example, they say if something is harmful to their organization they can remove it even if something isn't listed explicitly. And that's something that pretty much all services say. So why is this specifically the thing that makes you worried?
There is not a magic solution that is perfect in every scenario. Air conditioners decrease humidity as a side effect, though.
I may be mistaken, but I thought Twitter still granted it to some people without paying? Or maybe they fully moved it to "check = subscription".
Shame on The Guardian for using a term for a kink when the article itself even mentions a term for the specific form of sexual assault. Why call this anything ralted to gooning when it's tagging/sharking/cum-sharking?
This may seem minor to folks, but it's actually extremely concerning. I'll be very clear though, this behavior was disgusting. I'm not saying people engaging in sexual assault aren't pieces of shit or that they're just engaging in a harmless kink. The problem is that the article also uses a term for a kink/people engaging in a kink and labels it onto people engaging in sexual assault.
It even came with its own specialized vocabulary. Masturbating in public and surreptitiously ejaculating on random women was known as “tagging” or “sharking” – or even “cum-sharking”. Online forums praised perpetrators for being “low inhibition” or “low inhib”, and users contributing to the discussion said they wished they could summon the same fearlessness in themselves.
[...]
Almost immediately, the lawyers stumbled on another weird dimension to the cases they were developing: an online subculture of lonely, disaffected men, known as “gooners”, who bond with one other over their shared fascination with obsessive masturbation and compete with each other to see who can keep going for hours or even days at a time.
While most appear to pursue their self-pleasure in private “goon caves” and are not criminals, some gooners, the lawyers found, took pride in public acts of masturbation. In fact, some were committing sharking assaults at Dollar Tree stores and posting the footage online.
[...]
Another gooner, who was caught filming himself while masturbating at a Dollar Tree in Fern Park, Florida, told police that he did this regularly “in different locations” and uploaded the videos to an OnlyFans page, according to his arrest report.
[...]
Long before it developed an association with criminal acts, “gooning” was understood as a pornography-fueled compulsion, sometimes involving multiple screens at once, that can become a substitute for intimate relationships with others. It also tends to come with a heavy dose of self-loathing. Experts say that online forums and video content aimed at gooners often send the message that obsessive masturbation – whether alone or in public – is as much as men like them can aspire to in life. Webster described it as a “disavowed manic state of triumph over something hideous”.
One common trope of the pornography that these gooners consume has men ejaculating over women’s bodies, faces and hair – acts that, Lankford said, have no basis in evolutionary biology and are difficult to interpret as anything other than demeaning to the women.
As a small aside, I think the last paragraph really shows out weirdly out of touch some of this article is. Does something sexual have to be based on "evolutionary psychology" for it to be considered acceptable? As long as consensual for all parties involved, why does it matter? Just because something makes you personally uncomfortable doesn't mean it's something that's inherently wrong. Kinks can be explored in a consensusal, safe, and healthy way. Conversely, would that suddenly mean other niche kinks that are based in more biological topics are considered acceptable? Does knotting get a pass but facials don't?? Like, this paragraph is just so weird. Anyways, back to the main point.
This is really concerning to me. It's the Overton window shifting to demonize porn instead of the actual issue at hand: sexual assault.
For folks who might not understand why I think this is concerning, consider this hypothetical alternative scenario.
Alcoholic sexually assaults woman
A local woman was attacked in public. During the assault, the assailant's words were slurred and his breath smelled of hard liquor. He was detained and found to be a part of a community that attacks women and posts videos of it online. They call themselves rapists.
Almost immediately, the lawyers stumbled on another weird dimension to the cases they were developing: a disturbing trend amongst people to engage in drinking alcohol. These alcoholics bond with others over their shared interest in alcohol.
While most alcoholics are content to self indulge at home or in bars, many also drink at parties, or large get togethers of many people. At these parties many people drink alcohol. A concerning trend amongst party goers is to have sex. Many of these alcoholics rape women at these parties.
We consulted a biologist and they informed us that alcohol is actually poisonous to the body and there is no reason one should ever consume it.
In case it's not clear, instead of calling the person a rapist they're called an alcoholic, ignores that the person is in a group called "rapists", and then tries to make a connection between alcohol and rape.
What if the article was about finding a kidnapping victim who was tied up and the article attributed it to shibari? It's just so weird to me. I find it disgusting. I hope that others here aren't so puritanical that they can see the problem I'm illustrating.
Two different webs very close together. I like to imagine they'd chat about their days of they could!
Link to a (frustratingly) deleted question on Stack Overflow. Text and image copied below incase you don't have the ability to see it. (Not sure why the image shows multiple times.)
Is there any way to more granularly control IntelliJ IDEA's inspections' "Nullability and data flow problems" option "Treat non-annotated members and parameters as @Nullable"? Preferably for unboxing specifically?
I am aware I can use a variety of @Nullable annotations in a variety of places in the code to make the warnings appear. That's not always an option as the place the boxed primitives are coming from may be other libraries you don't have control over. (Imagine if the Holder record below was from a different project.) I included other examples below to illustrate my point.
public class Sample {
private final Boolean value;
public Sample(Boolean value) {
this.value = value;
}
private boolean isValue() {
return value; // I would like a warning here
}
private static Boolean boxedTrue() {
return true;
}
private static boolean unboxedTrue() {
return boxedTrue(); // No warning here, but that's understandable since never null
}
private static Boolean boxedNull() {
return null;
}
private static boolean unboxedNull() {
return boxedNull(); // Only warning in the file (by default)
// "Unboxing of 'boxedNull()' may produce 'NullPointerException'
}
public record Holder(Boolean value) {}
public boolean openHolder(Holder holder) {
return holder.value(); // I would like a warning here
}
}
When "Treat non-annotated members and parameters as @Nullable" is enabled, the following gives warnings. While that makes sense given the name of the option, there is code like this literally everywhere. It adds hundreds of warnings to my project. I'm trying to find more granular choices.
public static ZonedDateTime timeStuff(LocalDateTime localDateTime, ZoneId zoneId) {
return localDateTime.atZone(zoneId); // I do not want warnings for this
}
I see that the Java Class Library has JetBrains annotations despite not actually being annotated. Is there perhaps some way to add these automatically to libraries if there is no better way to control the inspection?
Literally. I open up my terminal and try to cd Desktop only to be told that no such file exists. I thought for sure everyone this was happening to was just not reading something correctly and were foolish. Nope! It literally began deleting my files.
Edit 2: Even once it's done and you have them locally and not "on demand", the Desktop is in
~/OneDrive/Desktopinstead of~/Desktop. See this helpful comment.
It looks like there might be a way to sort of disable Files on Demand but it looks like it won't let me do it until it's done uploading? I'll post updates.
Not to be dramatic, but I'm really going through it. My mouse logitech mouse is suddenly chattering really bad and double clicking everything. Also while Steam refuses to let me disable auto updates for all games in any sort of easy way. And DDG seems intent on only showing me results related to launching games without updating (as opposed to merely disabling auto updates until I launch). The chatter fixer I found for my mouse does not work and the other requires some logitech program to even try to use. (The repo doesn't mention the name.) This is awful. When it rains it pours, I guess. Literally can't even high light this text to wrap it in a spoiler. This is fucking stupid.
Context: My parents have a family plan for Microsoft 365 they added me too and it has 1 TB of storage I can use. I wouldn't have turned it on otherwise.
Edit: My desktop background has literally vanished and turned solid black.
Fuck it, .zshrc it is.
Image transcription:
You may like this VSauce video about this topic called The Future of Reasoning. I spent a lot of time in 2020 and 2021 arguing with people online about covid and election fraud. I was under the impression that if someone just calmly, gently, respectfully laid out why they were wrong they'd accept it. I mean, for goodness's sake, one of the claims I responded to was someone saying something about X number of people voted in some county but there aren't that many people registered there. I told them it's easy to debunk and that I just searched Google for the county's official website and voter registration numbers and, as expected, they were different and higher than the number of people who voted. You wanna know what their response was? "Google is biased." Even though the information wasn't from Google, that's just how I found the site. (And I probably even used duckduckgo but didn't want to explain that lmao, point still stands.)
This video came to me after I'd already made the conscious decision to just stop doing it for my own mental health. It was really impactful.
https://youtu.be/_ArVh3Cj9rw
Perhaps the most ironic (or unironic) thing is that had I seen this before I had that experience, I may have disagreed with the video.