I hope you're joking. You can spend years developing ground-breaking shit in the dark and no one will ever know you exist. You might attract a miniscule following of people who recognize the value of what you're creating, but they won't evangelize for you.
> try as best as you can to aim it into your anus to wash as best as you can
This seems like a great way to spray shit everywhere and is not at all how I learned to use those. What I do is soap one hand, aim the jet into the toilet past the anus with the other hand (jet vector orthogonal to the anus's normal vector), then go to town on it with soap and water. It's foolproof and you get very clean.
How has nobody mentioned this? I feel like I'm on crazy pills, is everyone seriously blasting a jet directly at their chocolate starfish?
Yet here I am on the other side surprised to hear you and others saying you’re lathering your poopy butt with your hands in a restaurant bathroom
We all gotta wash our butts, but it just seems more civilized to do it in the shower as you can get everything clean, you didn’t just crap, and you’re not eating with those same hands immediately afterwards.
Toilet paper + wet wipes are 100x more sanitary than what you describe
Wait, wait, wait. Our society's gonna fall apart due to a lack of Darwinian selection pressure? What do you think we're selecting for right now?
Seems to me like our culture treats both survival and reproduction as an inalienable right. Most people would go so far as to say everyone deserves love, "there's a lid for every pot".
Not all change is progress. Make America Great Again is a fundamentally reactionary platform, and nothing about the goals of Project 2025 is "progressive". Cute wordplay, though, good job using denotation to oppose connotation.
"Progress" as a goal is only meaningful with a defined direction. But I disagree with you, definitionally any change is progressing towards something.
This is precisely the issue I have always had with considering oneself "progressive". The end goals you are aiming for are the important factor to call out, the fact that you are simply progressing means only that you don't want to stand still.
Progressivism and the idea of being "progressive" or "a progressive" are defined ideologies. Within the political spectrum they have their own meaning. Arguing semantics in this way is not particularly different than saying "I saw a Republican turn left coming out of a doorway, so are they really on the right?"
Mind sharing, or linking to, what the defined ideology is?
My understanding of progressivism, as it is commonly used in the US, is that its based on often unspoken assumptions that the goals being progressed towards are "good" or "right" and that others' goals, therefore, are not. That isn't really a progressive ideology in my opinion though, and sounds more like an elitist approach to authoritarian rule.
It was a genuine question, thanks for assuming that.
I still don't get what the underlying ideology is though (sorry if I'm being obtuse here).
> seeks to advance the human condition through social reform – primarily based on purported advancements in social organization, science, and technology.
"Advance" here has the same issue as "progressive" - it needs direction to be meaningful. This doesn't say what we would be advancing towards, though it does say a few ways we may be able to get there.
For comparison, liberalism and conservativism are much more clear.
Conservativism can be (very roughly) boiled down to "don't break a good thing." Said differently, keep a high bar for change and default to trusting the people before us got here for good reason.
Liberalism can be similarly boiled down to prioritizing individual freedoms and liberty.
With wither of those two there will be a slew of political initiatives or programs that are based on those principles, but the underlying principles are clear.
That's what I've yet to grasp with progressivism, when you peel away all the programs and initiatives what is the underlying principle and what is the specific direction to progress or advance towards? As far as boundary cases go, what does progressivism look like once that goal is reached - does it become conservative?
If you read just a bit further in that article it is rather specific:
> While many ideologies can fall under the banner of progressivism, both the current and historical movement are characterized by a critique of unregulated capitalism, desiring a more active democratic government to take a role in safeguarding human rights, bringing about cultural development, and being a check-and-balance on corporate monopolies.
Sure, that's still not really a clear ideological underpinning to me though.
Is the core that goal to progress away from capitalism towards more governmental control?
If so I guess that is at least defining a directional goal, but using the blanket term "progressive" there is effectively blocking out anyone who wants to progress towards a different goal.
It seems like federalist or anticapitalist would be much more clear. At least then the goals they want to move towards are the distinguishing factor rather than the act of changing from where we are currently.
I agree. Conservative is a slightly less manipulative term than progressive. Progressive implies "we're the goodies"; conservative "we want to keep the current state of things".
But the "Make America Great Again" movement is explicitly regressive because they want to return America to its "past glory". All of trumps messaging has been about how great the US used to be, before it was hijacked by communists/the left/transgenders, and that he will protect you from the cultural changes taking place. This is reactionary/regressive. You can play word games with "progress to the goal of returning america to the past" but it's just spin. People know what "progress" means.
I don't disagree at all, I think many of Trump's talking points could fit with a "regressive" label.
I don't think its really word games when talking about progressivism today. Trump could claim the banner of progressive in the sense that he's trying to progress towards a future he believes is better for all of us, while Democrats are attempting to conserve what they built. Personally I see that as a bullshit word game, but that doesn't mean the words are actually used improperly there.
If someone tells you they are progressive, what is the end goal you expect they mean? Its totally possible that banner is shorthand for a specific goal or direction and I just completely missed the boat there.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the offer of a free trial made me bounce right off, despite my curiosity and the value such a product could potentially offer me. I want to know up front whether this is going to be useful to me before I sign up for anything. To that end, offering even a single no-strings-attached identification, even if the details are redacted, would go a long way towards conversion.
Creating features and fixing bugs based on Support feedback (Community Support or otherwise) may result in an amazing experience for the free tier, but not-as-good-as-it could be for your paid subscribers.
Wow, this really opened my eyes! I hadn’t thought about it from that perspective. hank you so much for helping me see that! I will completely remove subscription, change pricing model to credits, pay as you go.
Some startup business models and development processes don't work well if they collect massive amounts of free ephemeral users instead of a dedicated base when starting out.
Competition is important for maintaining a healthy marketplace. Any behavior that makes it harder for others to compete, reducing the amount of competition, is therefore bad. That's what anticompetitive means.
I don't think protecting trade secrets is sabotaging the competition though.
It's not nit-picking. A layman presented with this explanation might get the impression that a "problem" is being "solved", which implies there is some utility to the PoW algorithm, rather than energy being wasted for the sole purpose of proving that energy has been wasted. In fact, even the word "Work" in "Proof of Work" implies the same. Proof of Waste would be a much more apt description of what is actually happening.
Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case and the parent comment is right to point that out.
> Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case and the parent comment is right to point that out.
You're either trying to confuse others intentionally, or if I'm interpreting charitably, you are merely confused yourself. In neither case is this attitude warranted. You just re-explained that the crux of the issue is useful work vs non-useful work. This is exactly the same point that Josde explained. This point was contested by lottin. I don't understand why they would contest it, as they very clearly agree with that point (based on reading other messages they wrote in this thread). According to you, lottin is not "pretending to disagree", they are "merely providing further context". This is very obviously not true. Either you are lying on purpose or you are confused, maybe you didn't read their message properly. Here it is again for you to read:
> It's worse than that, they're aren't solving anything at all. They're taking part in a lottery, in which participants have to guess a number, and the winner gets to update the ledger. Nobody is solving complex mathematical problems.
Does that sound to you like "yes, I agree, and here is some further context"? Obviously not. That message is expressing strong disagreement, not further agreement.
> Obviously not. That message is expressing strong disagreement, not further agreement.
Not obvious to me. But sure, I'm confused all right. Confused at how lottin's comment could be interpreted as contesting Josde's, when it reads as a reinforcing restatement to me. Confused at your hostility and accusations of misinformation.
Perhaps you're confused about how online conversations work? Sometimes people reply with a restatement when they feel the original doesn't go quite far enough. I mean, lottin's comment was arguably ineloquent, but he wasn't "muddying the waters". Do you perhaps have some expectation that the act of replying implies disagreement? Is it the strongly negative tone that gave you that impression? It certainly isn't the content, since you correctly interpreted my own restatement of lottin's comment as agreement.
I'm not trying to confuse others, I'm trying to enlighten you, specifically, about what happened here so that you might reconsider next time before jumping on someone for something they didn't say.
Ok, you and one other person said that lottin's comment doesn't read as disagreement, so maybe you're right and I'm the one reading it incorrectly. I'll take your feedback. Seems like I might be in the wrong here.
reply