“Robinson”!?!

I’m sorry but you’re going to have to hand in your passport.

Ideally you duct-tape a grenade to each of your “decoys” so it doesn’t really matter either way which target they choose to prioritize

Sympathize with their plight if you find doing so worthwhile, but also recognize their response isn’t helping.

Maybe they’re just a fan of death?

…Or maybe they mean threatening death itself— As in, like “Stop killing my friends, Death, that’s really not cool, and I’m going to start stealing your Death-beers from your Death-fridge if you don’t stop”.

…There’s probably an ecological definition for “community” that you could try to transfer over… I think in cases where a large group of individuals don’t actually interact with all of each other either directly or indirectly, but are nonetheless relevant as a grouping because they share a particularly contextually prominent set of traits (E.G. “Plays Video Games”), then “population” might be a more appropriate term (if a bit sterile).

Aligning power over systems with stackholders impacted by those systems is usually good for avoiding hostile incentives which result in hurting people, yes. Plus to some it might axiomatically be morally good.

https://reddit.com/r/gamedev/s/mLv9uIQ1vO

That just redirects to thread 16j21jg. They’re generating opaque unique IDs so they can track permalinks now?

Bruh. I offered a polite correction on an ultimately inconsequential grammatical error you made. You’re the one who doubled down on the error, and then continued doubling down while ignoring everything I said except for specific sentences which you clearly didn’t understand.

“Spewing out ChatGPT levels of text”? WTF is that even supposed to mean? I just quickly explained the grammar at first. Then, when you didn’t get that, I elaborated on the reasoning for it, and linked to like, five different independent sources, instead of just making blanket assertions. You didn’t understand, so I explained­— Jeez, but that’s the real issue, isn’t it? You don’t seem to like that very much.

This is so stupid. Does it even matter? Do you do anything other than moralize down at Internet strangers about petty and incorrect semantics while repeating yourself?

If I was saying that the change already happened I would have said ‘affectED’ past tense, which I did not.

I’m advocating for something to cause change, I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.

Oh my god. You’re using “change” as an object noun after a transitive verb which itself has no connotation or denotation of creation or causation. That implicitly means you’re saying that the thing it’s referring to must already exist.

I’m advocating for something to cause change,

Yes! That is what “effect” means.

I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.

Yes you are! “Affect (v.)” already means “change (v.)”. “Affect (v.) change (n.)” means “change (v.) the change (n.)”. That implies that the “change (n.)” must already exist.

It’s like if I said “This salt will really affect my spaghetti”. That implicitly says/presumes that “my spaghetti” already exists, or else it wouldn’t be able to be affected.

I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.

🙄

FFS, I explained the grammatical reasoning, and linked to historical usage data, and linked to four different dictionaries to back that up.

You know what, fuck it. I only mentioned “effect” vs. “affect” because I thought that was somewhat interesting and more obscure rather than annoying to point out, but if you’re going to just be obtuse about it I may as well have some fun and point out the various other grammatical and semantic mistakes too…

“The Congress app” should not have a definite article because the app you linked to is, per the app ID, developer info, and first line of its description, unofficial and unaffiliated with the U.S. Congress. “Representative” should be plural, though that’s probably just a typo. The second “despite” should have a conjunction such as “and” immediately before it. “Want” should be conjugated as “wants” after “citizenry”, because the noun it applies to in this case is the singular “majority”. “Affect” should be “effect”, because “affect change” isn’t a thing and is actually nonsense. The clause right after that, beginning with “that’s what the corporations”, is a run-on sentence and should probably be fixed with a conjunction denoting causality or reasoning. The clause after “involved” is also a run-on sentence, and should probably either be its own declarative statement or be semicolon-delimited. The third “to” on the second sentence of your next reply needs a listing conjunction right before it. And in your latest reply, the clause after “cause change” is also a run-on sentence and should probably be delimited by either a full stop or a semicolon instead of a comma.

Now I suppose I’ll wait for you to explain why you “stand by” these other plainly incorrect (and, frankly, inconsequential) errors as well.

It’s funny how you started out pretending to champion political change, and to be against frivolously “commenting about it on an Internet forum”. … I should know better.

Change is to alter something, not to create/produce something.

It’s a transitive verb. “Affect change” places “change” as the object. You’re not saying you’re altering the political situation or you’re altering Congress; You’re saying the change is already happening, and you’re merely slightly altering its direction. “Effect change” means “Make a change”, which is what you’re trying to say. “Affect change” means “change the change”, which is probably nonsensical in most cases you’d use it.

Also, “effect change” specifically is a standard idiom. “Effect change” shows up in the English language around 8X more commonly than “affect change” between 1800 and 2000, because “affect change” is a semantically incorrect misspelling of “effect change”. [1] “Effect a change” is also either explicitly defined in or given as an example usage in many major dictionaries, while the same isn’t true of “affect change”, because, again “affect change” is a generally incorrect usage that doesn’t actually make sense or mean anything outside of potentially very specific scenarios that don’t apply here. [2]

1: Google Books Ngram Viewer.

2: Defined in Collins. Used in example sentences by: Cambridge, Webster, American Heritage

I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.

I mean. Feel free to, I guess?

only way to affect change is to lobby

Don’t want to be pedantic, but not American and don’t really have much else to add here.

This is one of the few times when the correct word is “effect”, not “affect”. “Affect (v.)” means to alter, or have an impact on. “Effect (v.)” means to produce, and to create an effect (n.) of.

Nissan also said it collected information on “sexual activity.” It didn’t explain how.

Nissan doesn’t provide a detailed explanation of how the data is collected, but they say that the source they collect the data is “Direct contact with users and Nissan employees,” Whatever that means.

Based on this information, I can only infer that the Nissan sales handbook has a section on using seduction for particularly difficult and/or hot potential customers.

…I used to work at a pizza shop. Oh, so that’s why we got so many orders from the local Nissan dealership!

It’s for their upcoming line of Combine harvesters.

TAPR or CERN OHL, probably— Kit cars do already exist, though are apparently aimed at hobbyists, and usually just partial cosmetic customizations. “Metal box on wheels with motor” ain’t exactly rocket science, although quality could be challenging and that’s especially important when it comes to safety.

That said, surely the production costs of modern vehicles needed to do their basic job— Efficient-ish and safe-ish transportation from point A to point B­— Can’t possibly be worth their increasingly inflated costs? There’s probably something to be said about the marketability of a sub-$10,000 basic OHL car that you can choose to scratch build or kit-build or buy fully built.

Well, nuts.

Nix is a good tool, but don’t think I’d personally want to give up the Linux FHS for it. Manjaro’s management does indeed have a somewhat concerning track record.

Do you ever run into upstream bugs, or Idk, package version incompatibilities, on Endeavour? The idea that the 2-week package grouping and delay might help avoid those is one of the main things that drew me to Manjaro.

Yes. And I’m saying that’s not really a valid comparison, because those phones are generally just monolithic slabs that have been glued shut, whereas Fairphone has to implement a user-serviceable modular design with actual seals and stuff.

Would giving it both water-sealing and a headphone jack be worth increasing the price by another €20, because it adds a new potential ingress point that the rest of the phone might have to be redesigned around? What if the jack is one of the biggest parts that isn’t replacable? Fairphone 5’s apparently only rated IP55, while Fairphone 4’s only IP54. That’s barely even really “waterproof”, but more like “splash-proof”. Would adding another hole in the frame be worth possibly reducing that rating to IP53 or IP52 (“drip-proof”)? Would it be worth reducing the warranty by 4 years, because some amount of dust and moisture still works its way in over time no matter how robust the rest of the phone is?

Personally I think I would probably rather have the jack even if it meant no waterproofing at all. But that might not be the direction the market is leaning in, and we don’t know what tradeoffs exactly they’ve considered to arrive at their final design with decent-ish waterproofing and good reparability but no headphone jack.

They have written about this directly in some detail, it seems. If nothing else, it shows that they have put some thought into the issue, and they’re aware that removing the headphone jack will be disappointing for some users, but overall they see making the phone thinner and adding IP rating as being the higher priority:

https://support.fairphone.com/hc/en-us/articles/9836188988049-Audio-Jack-3-5mm

“I’spose” est facile. “J’suppose” est dur à dire, parce qu’on ne peut pas dire “j’s” comme “i’s”.

Eh, je ne sais. C’est plus difficile que “I’spose”, oui, mais je pense que c’est ok… Les cowboys fringants dit aussi “j’te”, “j’rentre”, et probablement les autres consonnes aussi, donc, généralement, je l’imagine comme si on bredouille un peu.

J’ai dû sortir mon français rouillé. Merci pour la pratique. Et oui, j’ai utilisé Google.

Et la même à toi! Mais j’utilise Google pour traduire du français vers l’anglais, après avoir premièrement écrit la français avec Collins et quelquefois Reverso (mon professeur français a toujours aimé ça). Je fais des corrections alors peut-être. Ainsi, Google me dit si j’ai fait des grosses erreurs, mais je pratique mon français tout seul.

We spent more on the Manhattan project than the disorganized fusion projects have spent in a decade, and will spend in the next decade as well.

That cost was overwhelmingly slanted towards implementation though, not research. The theory for fission was very simple compared to nuclear fusion: Gather enough fissile material in one place rapidly, and it explodes. Once the basic parameters and theory were proven, the actual project cost went overwhelmingly to just enriching enough nuclear material and then, separately, getting the Silverplate Superfortresses ready. They were so sure of the science that they didn’t even bother to test the bomb they dropped on Hiroshima. It wasn’t like fusion research at all, where for over half a century every new device that’s supposed to produce power instead just discovers new plasma instabilities which mean it simply doesn’t work.

Also, the cost comparison you’ve made is simply false. The Manhattan project cost no more than $20-30 billion, inflation-adjusted. ITER’s cost (from 2008 through to ~2025) is going to be at least €22 billion, and apparently $65 billion if the US is to be believed. That’s of course not even counting the various other “disorganized fusion projects”, like the ongoing operating costs for W7X, the NIF, JET, and whatever the Z machine, Shiva star, etc., and assorted Chalk Los Sandia Livermore national laboratories are doing for fusion research. Still worth it, probably— Hell, if it cost $10 trillion, it would probably still be worth it, as long as it actually works— But let’s not pretend it’s cheap or free or a safe bet or easy solution.

Thorium is a safe bet, but it also needs significant research.

On the other hand, why not both?

That would be far too much foresight, obviously.

…But there’s also never enough resources to go around, and you don’t want to be the country that sank all its money into a technology that didn’t pan out.