The argument is that the cost of dealing with this legislation will result in the cost of internet service going up slightly, e.g. $10/month. This is irrelevant to the wealthy but impacts the lower classes more.
It can’t go up an equal amount for everyone because it has to end up equal and it currently isn’t. Since poor neighborhoods already pay more for less they will either get better service for the current price or pay less for existing service.
If you'd like yet another somewhat similar inquiry into the information-theory-based definition of life, I'll mention Karl Friston's Free Energy Principle.
Some advice based solely on my experience, YMMV etc.
Re: Mentors - reach out to someone who you enjoyed working with in a previous role, looked up to, and would enjoy working with again. Just ask them to have a quick chat, and have specific questions about your job hunt ready - ask them to share their approach to a job search, share what you've done, and ask if they have any advice for improvement. If the chat goes well, you can ask if it's alright if you reach out again. You don't necessarily need a full "mentor", just some guidance.
Re: Referrals - This is not strictly about typical "referrals", but if you can have a chat with a recruiter, you often can similarly cut through initial screens / red tape.
I have had a ton of luck reaching out directly to in-house recruiters for roles I'm interested in on LinkedIn. They're often constantly on LinkedIn, frequently doing outbound, and IME they're often happy that someone reached out - and this can be more effective than spending an hour hand-crafting a cover letter. Keep the message to a couple sentences, share why you're interested in the company, and again, ask to have a quick chat.
Didn't realize this before watching, but it's interesting that there's an incredibly complicated board state but the game state / actions are deterministic, e.g. the players don't have any choices about what to do once the machine is set up.
One my decks is actually built around getting the game into infinite combos which cannot end but that also don't kill anyone so the game ends in a tie. Same sort of thing. Always fun to pull off.
Most IRL play groups I’ve played with would count that as a loss for you (or, most likely, just not invite you back). And in competitive/regulated play you would timeout and lose. Not sure who these weirdos are that are stipulating to a draw against a deck that is unable to win.
Edit: I was wrong! I’ve only been playing competitively on Arena for years now. Per Rule 725.4 infinite loops are draws.
Yeah you demonstrate the loop once and show that other whatever the output of the loop is (damage, mana, creature tokens, mill for your opponents) your board is in the same initial state so it can be repeated an arbitrary number of times (or it's forced to repeat in which case you're in a forced infinite loop).
A friend of mine had a black/white deck that could loop you to death, it was no fun to play against, soon as he got the cards out he needed, he could (IIRC) banish a creature to the graveyard, then bring it back, repeatedly, and one of those actions inflicted damage on the opponent.
It was clever, but also beardy AF, to use a phrase from my days of WH40K
I used the same type of deck in Yu-Gi-Oh a few years ago. Something with fusion summoning elemental heroes which banished everything before bringing everything back. Wasn't all that good, but was somewhat fun to watch opponents realize the loop :)
No it's a group hug Commander/EDH deck. We all win together!
But yes it does kinda frustrate people. That's the downside of liking Magic because of it being fun to break as a system and not because you want to smash giant monsters into each other.
I used to play with a guy who had a deck named “Judge Problems.”
I don’t know what all was in it (I never played against it) but remember being regaled with tales of what happens when Opalescence and Humility come into play together as part of an effect that puts a bunch of permanents into play all with the same time stamp.
There's a difference between the player having to decide to keep looping by performing actions vs. the loop continuing on its own via triggers. The rules make a distinction and specifically don't allow someone to do the former indefinitely.
Personally, I find that trying to stay away from single-value representations of skills/health/etc is more helpful and facilitates more curiosity.
Instead of wondering, "Am I better at X than Bob?", I try to focus on "About which part of this problem might Bob have an insight I'm missing", for example.
It's probably true that I was better than 90% of students at some small sliver of something, but that's not super relevant in the larger scope of everything it means to be a student. Getting away from the "better"/"worse" dichotomy is the important thing, IMHO.
Maybe an aside, and I don't necessarily disagree that async is sometimes inefficient, but it's more efficient if you bias for reading instead of writing. For example, take 15-20 minutes to write the thing, so it only takes 3-5 minutes to parse.
This matters because async can become more efficient than sync when it prevents you from having to repeat yourself, but you lose this efficiency if you don't invest in clear writing that is easy to parse (repeatedly) to begin with.
What you're saying resonates a lot with me - I feel like I fell into programming (also writing game hacks), and I'm jealous of the passion I observe in others for SWE-specific concerns.
You look at the core problems of software engineering from a human-centric point of view - which is a great perspective, IMO.
Have you thought about trying to transition to a role that is more human-focused? I'm guessing with your level of experience, it wouldn't be too hard to find a path to team lead or EM. I'd also potentially consider consulting, either freelance or as part of a firm.
Personally, working on a larger "system" that includes people - a team, a department, a solution - is much more rewarding, because I get to work on a larger class of problems with a more diverse toolset, and I get to observe my impact on others.
I would frame it differently. There seem to be many dysfunctional marriages that are carried by e.g. inertia - and because of this, I do agree that perhaps marriage shouldn't be taken as such an assumption. By the same token, though, those that _do_ choose to engage in marriage should accept the responsibility and the (apparently, I am not married) large amount of effort it takes to make it successful. I'm choosing to look at this tactic as embracing that effort, and striving for an excellent marriage, instead of the "passable" marriage which seems to be the norm today.
