Is 1/2 in base 13 not 0.65?
bisby
joined 2 years ago
Written by someone with little understanding of the requisite material
The requisite material for the topic at hand is "dating a person who clearly thought there are implied social contracts at play, and attempting to make it work out anyway"
OP is asking about "How do I fit into society?" not "How should society function?"
I agree with you that a lot of implied social contracts are bullshit. But also they exist. Until you have had that talk together to figure out the relationship, there has to be some assumptions. People don't always have deep "what is this relationship" 2 minutes into the first date. Assumptions are not always bad.
Your stance is that the assumption is "I have no obligations until I've agreed to them." This is itself merely an assumption to make and not just "fact" of some sort. The vast majority of society has the assumption of "The relationship IS an obligation to some degree based on context." I'm not saying which assumption is "right," I'm just saying how it works for most people.
If I'm in a relationship where I'm committed enough to refer to the other person as "my partner" then I'm going to err on the side of not hurting them, regardless of who is to blame. If I can prevent the other person from being hurt just by working along with their assumptions until we can have a conversation where we make things explicit and there are no more assumptions, then why wouldn't I do that, unless "being right" is more important than my partner.
if you didn’t commit to spending the entire evening with her on her birthday
Bad news. This is sound logic, but in NT world, there are all sorts of implied social contracts. Dating someone defaults to "yes you DID commit to spending the evening with her on her birthday, unless otherwise discussed to opt out".
Not everything needs to be spoken or written down. If I walk into a restaurant but there is no sign that says "please form a line to place your order," I'm not going to barge to the front and begin ordering, because "form a line and wait your turn" is understood to be how society functions.
You are absolutely not obligated to follow the implied social contracts. And you not obligated to know all of the implied social contracts. But you also don't get to take the moral high ground on the situation.
she doesn’t have a right to blame you for her hurt
A healthy relationship doesn't have blame or a scoreboard or anything like that. It REALLY doesn't matter who is to blame. Try to win an argument by saying "Well you dont have the right to blame me." It will end more relationships than it will win arguments. If you value the relationship, you want your partner to not hurt regardless of the source/blame. The hurt happened and all you can do is figure out how to prevent the hurt going forward, which will often be by communicating and setting expectations.
Just inviting them to come with isn’t fair to your friend that wanted to hang out with you... You can always make plans with your partner on another day
Or you can make plans with your friend on another day. it is generally considered the "socially acceptable" thing to prioritize someone on special days like birthdays. Even if you have only give a bit more priority on someone's birthday, I would think that a partner already has enough extra priority that "I will spend time with only you" is not an unreasonable request. It's also not clear how long OP has been in this relationship. Based on the miscommunications, probably not long. If it's a serious relationship, then giving your partner extra priority sends the message that you find the relationship serious. Otherwise the message is "you are a priority person in my life and this is a priority day for you, but this other person is even higher priority still."
Asking them how they feel about you going ... understand that you should be able to go do things with your friends and you shouldn’t have to ask permission.
If you ask someone how they feel, and express they would be hurt, but you do the thing anyway, then you are saying that you don't care if you hurt them, and "Well i didnt know it would hurt you" is now a lie. Your options are to either not hurt them (by talking through the situation until it doesn't hurt them, or simply not doing the thing), or hurt them. But if you hurt them willingly, you are the one doing damage to your relationship. If you don't think they are being reasonable, then you may be in a toxic relationship and should end it. If you just don't care about their feelings, then you are definitely in a bad relationship and should end it. Asking isn't about "permission", it is about communicating that you value their input and their feelings.
Life is complicated, so "priority" doesn't mean that something is the only thing that matters but it does mean that it should factor into your decision making.
IMO it doesn't matter. People don't read news on updates. Should they? Yes. Do they? No. Should they have to? Also no.
Linus's point is to never blame the end user for something the kernel changed. If you want software to have widespread adoption, adding homework to simple updates isn't how you do it. People don't want a hobby or something to babysit, they want an operating system. Debian will go out of their way to make in-release updates go as smooth as possible, but are willing to through out entire parts of functioning packages between releases.
But this isn't even about breaking things for the end user. This will create excessive amounts of noise on the upstream repo. People will say "Hey! My keepassxc broke!" and they report it to keepassxc, and not to Debian. To which keepassxc just has to constantly reply "no, debian changed this on you, this is not a bug." If Debian had to deal with the fall out of their own decisions, I would say "yeah, im not sure if i agree with the decision, but oh well"... But they are increasing the workload for other teams.
It is already happening. The debian dev's stance is "This will be painful for a year." But it will be painful for keepassxc, NOT debian. The keepassxc devs asked them to not do this. Debian's response might as well be "Im inflicting this pain on you, even though you've asked me not to. But on the plus side, it won't hurt me at all and it will only last a year for you." If they really have that much disdain for the project, they should just stop packaging it altogether.
So yeah, debian has the legal right to do whatever they want because keepassxc is open source. but "just because I can, and you cant legally stop me, and its extra work for you, not me" is kind of a jerk move. This is what drives FOSS contributors to get burnt out and abandon otherwise good projects.
It'll also break all your keepassxc plugins soon. Because debian version to version compatibility is not a priority. They also don't care if them breaking something triggers a ton of upstream bug reports, because it will only "be painful for a year"
Linus for the kernel has a strict "don't break userspace" policy, and Debian has a "break things whenever you want, and just blame the user for not reading the news file" policy.
Definitely make sure you think through all the physical security implications of having your house automatically unlock in any scenario.
Have the house auto unlock when getting home on a bicycle, sounds convenient until, as you point out, they could get stolen and now the thief has a convenient way to unlock your house. So you would not want that.
You would definitely not want the house to STAY unlocked when something like a tag is in range. If your kid is home alone, you want them to be able to re-lock the house (or in general, you want to be able to lock your house while the kid is home).
Whatever solution you wind up with, you are going to be trading physical security for ease of use (and complicated fun task). Be safe. Make sure the tradeoffs are actually thought through and worth it.
Hard to unlock the house based on media playing if the kid is outside though.
Oh look. Debian changed the keepassxc package and now the keepassxc repo is getting all the bug reports for it. Their stance is "it will go away in a year or so"
Regardless of whether or not it is a good idea, it's undeniable that Debian makes a lot of decisions that negatively impact their upstream. And since it's someone else's problem, oh well.
There is a reason upstream repo maintainers wind up angry about problems that someone else caused.
I'm not an expert, but it has something to do with full words vs partial words. It also can't play wordle because it doesn't have a proper concept of individual letters in that way, its trained to only handle full words
too lazy to type this obvious thing in?
This has been the thing for me. I get really bored and lose focus when doing all the obvious repetitive stuff. And the obvious stuff is the stuff I find copilot does best. For anything that requires thought I'm engaged. Those are the fun parts of the job. It lets me do more of the fun part.
The one major downside that I've found is that sometimes I just want to tab complete a long variable/function name, and because of copilot i dont have "old style" tab completion anymore. (I could definitely still handle this myself, but i haven't)
edit: this all to say that I don't use copilot to write code that I don't know how to write, I use copilot to write code that I've written 1000 times before and don't want to write again. Copilot does a good job of looking through all the open files for context to help make sure the suggestions actually fit into the codebase's pre-existing style.
From the neovim 0.10 changelog:
So for me, i previously had
vim.cmd.hi 'Normal ctermbg=none'as the method for disabling the background. But now, nvim was deciding to use gui colors for the terminal, and I was only setting terminal background to none.The options are:
vim.cmd.hi 'Normal ctermbg=none guibg=none'(also none out the gui bg)vim.cmd.hi 'Normal bg=none'(flat unconditional bg none)vim.opt.termguicolors = false(just disable the now enabled by default function to go back to terminal colors)