The world tends to find that having an extraordinarily wealthy parent makes its own luck.

Exactly. Unfortunately “move fast and break things” has some disadvantages when it comes to driving in traffic.

At first I read that as an old printer from a school, and thought that was a very weird thing to want, but then I realised you meant a printer that was old school, and it all suddenly made sense to me!

I am British and I love this.

OK, yes, I think you’re right.

Of course, but the far right don’t care about facts, they just care about racism.

You say that because you commit crimes of indecency against confectionary and you like to think of yourself as immune to radicalisation. Don’t kid yourself. Come back to all that is right and good before it’s too late for you.

It’s symptomatic. Symptomatic of the abandonment of all that is proper and decent. Would our great grandparents have eaten candy like this? Would they have celebrated their rebellious ways so boldly? No, they’d have been ashamed. Ashamed of their wicked rule breaking. Rule breaking just for the sake of it. Rule breaking, not for mercy, not in exceptional circumstances, not out of desperation or having no other options, but role breaking just to show off how little respect they have in their hearts.

So yes, yes, people are eating bad candy so incorrectly that you can TELL society is on the point OF COLLAPSE.

This is indicative of a terrible malaise in education, in parenting, in intergenerational transfer of values, in respect and in good manners. No wonder the far right are on the rise, that Naziism is again celebrated. These edgelords will be the first to join the SS, just to shamelessly show off how wicked they are. Have we learned nothing? Are we so quick to repeat history’s darkest mistakes?

See, this is what’s wrong with society today.

Paint roller

Actually made me laugh, thank you.

But if prices don’t go up, the profits won’t increase! Why doesn’t anybody think of the poor shareholders, trying to barely eke out an income from their holdings?

True. But the word Monad has done more harm to the accessibility, popularity and reputation of pure functional programming than pretty much anything else.

Yeah, I could have said circle rather than curve of constant normal intersection points, but that word is very commonly understood, so it’s not that same as unnecessarily calling something a Monad. Maybe it’s the equivalent of calling it a 2-manifold instead of a wheel.

Perhaps just ditch the generalisation, then, and just call them Result or Maybe. After all, circle is a short word, but we just call them wheels.

Don’t call it a monad, call it a structured data type or something, that’s what it is! Calling it a monad is like saying that you’re using a curve of constant normal intersection point. Why not just say it’s a wheel?

Yes, it’s mathematically true that you’re having a smooth ride precisely because the normals have a constant intersection point, but it’s also true to say that it’s a wheel and it goes round and isn’t bumpy and doesn’t scrape, and people can get a handle on that.

So yeah, use a Result or Option or Maybe structured data type because it keeps explicit track of whether there’s a value or not, and yeah, you can change or combine them and preserve the tracking, but there’s no point calling it a monad unless you’re trying to make people believe that avoiding the $1bn mistake of allowing/using null requires category theory. It doesn’t, it’s just a structured data type. It’s simpler than an array! Stop calling it a monad.

The pedantic nerd in me wants to compare half of the building with the woman, or just the bit right next to the heart to the bit right next to the cabinet.

…

In his notes, Roszak wrote that Google’s search advertising “is one of the world’s greatest business models ever created” with economics that only certain “illicit businesses” selling “cigarettes or drugs” “could rival.”

…

Beyond likening Google’s search advertising business to illicit drug markets, Roszak’s notes also said that because users got hooked on Google’s search engine, Google was able to “mostly ignore the demand side” of “fundamental laws of economics” and “only focus on the supply side of advertisers, ad formats, and sales.” This was likely the bit that actually interested the DOJ.

As usual, the advice is not to rely on Google in any way.

Well, universal, anyway.

This might be the best dog photo I’ve ever seen on the Internet. Thanks for posting.

I don’t think I have an iron in this fire, but I do think that filtering some crap out of a gullible person’s Internet feed is way kinder and way healthier than cutting them out of your life completely.