What you're describing is making work useful, not meaningful. More people nowadays are rejecting work that has no meaning, connection to identity and makes no use of their intellect, even if that work is a means of some income.
Really? Which people are those? How did they get the privilege to pick and choose based on "meaning"? These claims seem totally disconnected from the way that most people actually live: they take the jobs they can get and make the best of it because they have bills to pay.
Hacker: That's not the point. Look at Latin. Hardly anybody knows that now.
Humphrey: Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
Hacker: What?
Humphrey: Times change and we change with the times.
Hacker: Precisely.
Humphrey: Si tacuisses, philosophus manisses.
Hacker: What does that mean?
Humphrey: If you'd kept your mouth shut, we might have thought you were clever.
Hacker: I beg your pardon?
Humphrey: Not you, Prime Minister. That's the translation.
What a great way to say to someone that their words could've had some value if they hadn't been too crude/maybe rude and said things in a different manner lol.
I don't agree with the author's standpoint but I can kinda understand it but their passive aggression on the parent comment was just not needed and this clever way of saying it was kinda cool. I learnt something new to say but I am not sure how many ways it would be viable to say this
Any other quotes like this that you might want to share?
No need to ask him; ask ChatGPT. That’s what he did: “Please give me a latin phrase that says someone would seem more intelligent if they had remained silent.”
ChatGPT has lifted Latin putdowns from the province of Harvard classics major to computer programmers.
I had a problem where it was not possible to include people from different organisations. Once you have more than one external organisation involved, I have to manage how they join and whether "external" or "guest". This makes it difficult or even impossible to set up the channel/chat with the people you want. This is entirely a Teams limitation.
Slack does not have these artificial barriers. You can invite single channel guests, or add them as full-fledged members. It's simple and logical.
I hear you about these being a bunch of different branches of Christianity. But the difference between branches of Protestantism and Catholicism is old and significant.
It'd be like saying "Talking about Rust is segregational. It's just all branches of programming languages starting with C". Technically true, but not a useful distinction.
> It'd be like saying "Talking about Rust is segregational. It's just all branches of programming languages starting with C". Technically true, but not a useful distinction.
That analogy is not valid. Protestants argue that catholicism does christianism in a sloppy way, whereas they do it right. If you're going with a programming language analogy, it's like a C++ programmer arguing that onboarding cppcheck and --Wall --pedantic is the only acceptable way to work with C++, and everyone else is doing it wrong.
>That analogy is not valid. Protestants argue that catholicism does christianism in a sloppy way, whereas they do it right. If you're going with a programming language analogy, it's like a C++ programmer arguing that onboarding cppcheck and --Wall --pedantic is the only acceptable way to work with C++, and everyone else is doing it wrong.
Every sect within a religion is going to argue that they are the ones doing it right and the others are either wrong or at least suboptimal depending on the state of inter-sect relations. I would peg the Protestants as C and the Catholics as C++ in this analogy, as the chief defining feature of protestantism is that they do not acknowledge the legitimacy of just about everybody who has ever claimed to speak on God's behalf past a certain point; thus, like C, their view of religion is inherently stagnant. They don't necessarily deny that God continues to interact with his creations, but they've realized that statistically speaking any given prophet or saint has an approximately 0.0 probability of actually conveying messages from God so they'll just stick with the ones that are so old that just about everybody [who calls themselves christian] already agrees on them. This is similar to the way that many C programmers are really C++ programmers who got tired of all the dumb new C++2x bullshit and just want to write computer programs.
Both the protestant religion and the C programming language have viewpoints that make sense given the histories of their respective subjects, but the major drawback of these viewpoints is that they have chosen to limit themselves to only iterating through new interpretations of old ideas; both of them are fundamentally incapable of innovation because being incapable of innovation is the fundamental core of their belief systems. Thus, if God ever really does try to leave the protestants a voicemail or if bjarne stroustrup ever does come up with an idea that isn't terrible and needlessly complicated, both the protestants and the C programmers will miss out on it.
I will not even attempt to speculate as to which programming languages should represent islam and judaism in this analogy because i do not want to die or have my account banned.
That's really not fair because the different sects and denominations of Christianity have different apocrypha and different translations (or lack of translations) of the source texts.
And of course they vary widely in rites, practices, and liturgy.
People think they are closer than they are. The difference between the protestant denominations, catholic denominations, mormans, jehovah's witnesses, etc are quite major and in a very real sense the separation between these different sects of Christianity are essentially only a few steps removed from the separation Islam has from Christianity.
I like this concept, now how does one tell the difference between a tenacious insider with a crazy idea that just might work, and a tenacious insider with a horrible idea that they just won't let go of?
Good crazy ideas revolve around solving one or a handful of extremely hard engineering tasks, which make everything else easier "assuming the crazy thing works."
Bad crazy ideas break any part of that description. The single hard thing is new science/research instead of engineering, or the new hard thing won't make the rest easier, or the new hard thing is supposed to get rid of all the other problems.
Are you wishing that the current usage of the word (the title you linked to) would stop, and that usage would revert to the older Latin meaning? Unfortunately that's not how language develops.
I am wishing that articles about history are more precise in their usage, since it can be difficult to tell which sense they mean of the word (historical, at the time of the material they are writing about, current meaning applied to back then).
This seems to be an advertorial. Even when it talks about what's missing it shrugs it off like an unrealistic demand:
> The one feature I really find lacking in Music is the ability to make playlists, but I know that when it comes to music services I’m hungry for power features that don’t necessarily appeal to the masses
This article is an ad, not a review or analysis of the service.
It really seems pointless when I've been using Google All Music Access for over a year and have access to all the music I know and love, all cached on my phone for offline use.
I've not read the article, but it makes sense to remember that 'payment' can come in various forms, not just cash. Access, favors, special privileges granted, etc.
This isn't my purview, per se, but I know there is some concern about this sort of thing, particularly in political reporting which has become much less adversarial compared to the not so distant past.
You're of course unlikely to find many of these concerns voiced very loudly in the 'press.'
Sure, but that applies to basically all articles (especially political ones, as you note). Every single reporter is balancing their interest in preserving access with their goals of accuracy in publishing.
Advertisement is a specific term and applying it to all articles that you don't agree with undermines its usefulness.
