This comment says the exact opposite of what you're praising Rosebud for. The debugging not only wasn't helpful, it actively made the game unworkable and unrecoverable.
Back when I had feet, there were so many days where I had anxiety over forgetting to tie my shoes. Sometimes I would start the day with my shoes untied. Other days I'd obsess over which knot to use. And additional worries over my shoe becoming untied during the day.
I found out the solution to these problems wasn't about just remembering to tie my shoe tightly in the morning like an adult -- the real solution was to cut off my feet so I never needed shoes again!
If the product has to TELL you up front that it has a "beautiful and intuitive user interface", it likely doesn't.
And the Tour page has a screenshot of the application titled "Stunning Elegance", where it does a great job of mostly looking the same as any desktop app developed in the last 10 years -- full of shades of grey, plain, no menus.
As a cherry on top, it is described as "Easy to learn. Exciting to master", which is getting so far out there into marketing land that my spidey senses tell me to stay far away.
i have used it. it is easy to learn. certainly no worse than the alternatives.
i get your criticism. but i see that very often. most projects just don't know how to present their apps in a good way. it seems like we are trying to describe apps in ways that we think non-tech people would expect, but we are failing.
A game like this with a million variations is almost immediately uninteresting. It makes it seem like the rules / strategy aren't fully formed and doesn't feel like something worth learning. The implementation is great though.
What, exactly, are you talking about? The OP is referencing the fact that the wife got _everything_ in the divorce. I'd be curious to understand why "facilitat[ing] his success in some way over the better part of a decade" entitles her to everything he ever made.
Your parent comment argument is a flawed argument, of course.
By definition everything that ever happens, happens from cause-effect conditions. So if you end up winning, everything that happened that led to it, in some way is responsible. But that's splitting hairs.
I have seen these situations even in other relationships. There are these cousins, or uncles who would have dropped you to an interview, or lent you some money to get there. You work hard and are fairly successful a few years later. Now they think they are responsible for the whole thing, and you owe a great deal of things to them.
If you are not relatively old(and 30s goes as young as adults can), you should be responsible for yourself, your finances and your decisions. Pension guarantees, and handing over whole life's work and savings because they other person wanted out feels not only excessive, but also devoid of any logical sense.
Exactly. Especially in modern times. Women have equal rights now... which is hugely deserved.... but they don't have equal responsibility? That later part no longer makes sense.
I’d argue that equal rights aren’t yet global nor fully manifested even in places where they’re intended.
Look at studies around division of labour within North American homes and it appears women are still tending to take on most homemaking responsibilities. There are interesting psychological and potentially biological factors involved.
One take on this is that women do a lot of “hidden” labour. What men do is often very obvious and readily apparent. Women take on tasks more related to planning, preparing, organizing, or otherwise using mental energy and time to improve quality of life for their families. For the family it just seems like things are normal; it isn’t evident that a person went out of their way to ensure things went better. This work is actually quite demanding and often invisible and unappreciated. It can often lead to reduced time for self care, sleep, eating, etc.
Women aren't obligated to do the work you describe. They often do but they don't need to do it.
The man needs to fill his gender role fully by raw obligation. It is not a choice. It's a biological requirement expressed by women in mating preferences. It's a strong preference and pretty much Universal behavior among women.
Men impose no such requirement on women. So what you will see is that whether women do what you say or not varies widely. I lived in a family where my mother didn't plan anything and she wasn't diligent about making sure everything was smooth. She was chill about everything. Didn't mean our family was dysfunctional. That's just her, and she could be this way because my dad didn't care. But if my dad wanted to become a house husband? The marriage is over if that choice is ever made.
Either way. The split should be made by proof of work. Not hypothetical anecdotes from either of us. Historical Income is the only raw evidence of it.
And I'd go further to say. If a woman doesn't demand equal responsibility then she doesn't deserve equal rights. That goes for men too. Unfortunately male dating preferences are rather lax, but that's another story about another problem.
I agree, to a point. Everything should certainly be a case-by-case basis.
We’re also in complicated times because social norms aren’t as dependable as they were, once. Family structures are changing. Roles are changing for many people. My kids experience around the home is already far different from mine, and I believe it’s the case for most of their friends as well. Family structure in 20 years could be significantly different from what it was 20 years ago. The need to evaluate case-by-case will probably only increase.
Your point about equal responsibility and equal rights is a good one. I suppose my position is that a lot of hidden labour can be responsibility, and it can often be important and overlooked. Yet, it’s not as though men never share in this, or that being a primary provider doesn’t come with its own hidden labours. For example, the insane amount of learning required to stay competitive and relevant in my role - we’d very likely have a smaller income if I didn’t fit this in and move my career forward. It’s all very complicated, nuanced stuff.
At the end of the day though, I agree. If someone isn’t actively pursuing equal responsibility for themselves and their partner, they’re likely not equally entitled.
In a divorce it's much more about the kids than it is about the wife. The kids get stability in a divorce. Where possible kids live in their home with their primary carer, don't have to move to a new school etc.
Why is the wife the primary carer? It starts because the husband can't get pregnant or breastfeed. It's supplemented by the likelihood that he's already the highest earner, which generally meant that he slept on so he could work the next day, while she is more likely to lose sleep nursing a crying baby.
Biology is a reality. Reality is literally sexist, and women get the rough deal in almost every way. I wouldn't want that at any price. People think they can opt out of biology these days, but that's a luxury belief that comes crashing down when sex and reproduction comes up.
I can't imagine risking getting pregnant because of sex. I can't imagine having to be pregnant for 9 months for every kid, impacting my health. I honestly don't even want to imagine the painful, stressful and risky job of giving birth. I can't imagine lactating, and therefore being the one who can instantly feed a crying baby at night. And eventually losing out on a career because I'm tied to the home for 8 years straight to raise 3 kids.
Having said that, this norm, which has obvious and sensible roots in human history, is abused. And it is somewhat dated in some countries today where there equal parental leave for mother's and fathers, breast feeding stations at work, creches etc. But how many women, even in first world countries have those luxuries? And is childbearing and rearing not still extremely sexist by definition? Yes! Unless you're rich enough to pay a surrogate. But then it's still "some woman" taking on the physical discomfort and risk, albeit for money.
So, prime example: Heather Mills getting millions out of Paul McCartney was totally unfair because she didn't take a career break and lose out because she was raising their kids while he made his money.
Totally agreed biology IS a factor here. The problem is biology doesn't come with a label and sometimes it's not clearly designed for a singular concept.
There's no Label on exactly which parent is supposed to be the better care taker and maybe there's not supposed to be a clear answer here. But there is this:
Divorce is about people not wanting to live and share their life together, it is a union where both parties should benefit (why else go into such an agreement).
In many cases after a divorce the man does not get to see his children due to the women getting more money the less the man take care of the children. This is really bad for the children, research show that children do a lot worse the less they have contact with both parents.
In the modern western society (Europe/USA) the men get the worst deal and this show in almost every respect (93% men in prisons, double the amount of drug users, single custody (80/20). Women also live longer, die less often of work relegated injuries. In general women gets taken care of by society to a greater extent than men.
I don't know where you live but that's not how it works most places. I know lots of divorced people. They don't live together any more. The woman gets full custody of the kids for all the reasons I mentioned above, but again, it's more about what the kids want. Even if they choose to live with their mother the father does get to see his kids. But he can't continue living with his ex, and they both live busy lives and have other relationships, so he can't just drop in to see the kids whenever he likes. Which is why they decide on a schedule. That's how it works with almost every divorced couple I know.
In my nearly 40 years I’ve never seen a case where a woman got everything and actually got everything. It’s rhetoric. Sometimes men get unfair custody arrangements which leads to difficult support arrangements, but this is still not taking everything.
She got the house. Usually for American families that's the majority of their wealth. A huge majority. A split would mean selling the house. But that didn't happen.
In my family, my wife would get the house because although she has 5 degrees and a relatively good career with the federal government, I typically earn 2x more than she does. I can buy my own house if necessary. She can’t. It’s not for lack of trying. She earns more than all of her friends, and most of my friends for that matter. She would get the house because any other option would harm her and the kids.
This could have been the case for them as well. It seems likely to me. Getting the house when you have low income potential isn’t a “win”; it’s being thrown a life boat.
Why would it harm her kids? You can buy a house anytime according to uou. And why should she get the kids? She's better than you by virtue of you being male?
How about people make that judgement based off of evidence not gender.
Additionally my stance isn't that men should get everything. My stance is wealth should be divided according to contribution. Which is in alignment to what you're describing.
My point still stands though. For the overwhelming majority of people and likely munger, the house is the majority of wealth.
And the best case for the kids in this scenario is for the parents to divorce but allow charlie munger to still own half of the house and live in it. That's best for the kids. Best for the kids is not meeting his wife's demands of forcing him to move out and making her own daughter watch him become pathetically destitute. I would hate my own mother if she did that, I cannot respect that even in my own parent.
Right, it seems like we’re mostly on the same page.
I definitely don’t mean to imply my wife would get sole custody. I think both parents should be given equal opportunity to do their best, and anything else will inevitably harm the kids in some shape or form.
What I meant is that if my wife didn’t have adequate housing, it would be bad for her bad the kids on her time with them. If we separate, I could readily use my income and credit to find adequate housing in a way that she couldn’t. As such, finding some arrangement in which she keeps the house would be best for her financial situation and for the kids’ experience as well.
I definitely don’t think moms are entitled to more time or more wealth. I’d expect equal custody of our kids. The housing part is just a result of our particular situation; it would work fine for us. This might not work well at all for others, and if that’s the case, they should do something else. Hopefully that makes sense.
>> The paragraphs about git were interesting, in the sense that the author themselves suffer from the industry's "I'm right and you're wrong" motto that is the reason, by the looks, that they've left. There is some unresolved conflict there.
> I don't necessarily think that's "I'm right, you're wrong". Instead it looks more like just being strongly opinionated on the matter.
Are you honestly making the claim that the part of the post that repeatedly states "You're doing it wrong" isn't saying "I'm right you're wrong", but rather just being "strongly opinionated on the matter?"
It reads very tongue in cheek to me because I have gone on those types of rants in the past. And I've known a number of other people who hold similar stances and they also do the same thing.
Like I've literally gone on a "if you do X you are doing it wrong" rant about git verbatim when trying to explain patchset etiquette in the past. It's not trying to say "you are always wrong for doing it this way", it's just way too long winded and difficult to explain your point about should be versus shouldn't be done in your view while being nuanced and pointing out that they are sometimes okay. You just say "if you are doing X you are wrong" and hope the reader picks up on the subtext that you are just making a point and not trying to be authoritative. It's a lot easier to do in person but alas.
That sounds like toxic communication to me. I bet if you took a 10 second pause before saying something is wrong, then you would be able to come up with a form of expressing your opinion that isn't phrased in such an absolutist matter. I don't think it's fair to engage in that form of language and then put the burden on other people to "pick up on the subtext". If you're trying to make a point, make that point, don't just reduce your argument to "trust me I'm right you're wrong".
It's not a matter of trying to word it differently. You are very clearly expressing your opinion on the matter and when you say "if you are doing X you are doing it wrong" like 20 or 30 times to list a bunch of things that you personally see as "git smells", it's just easier to do it that way than explain each little situation where each smell is situationally justified.
Maybe instead of saying "you are doing it wrong" you could say "you are underutilising git" but even then that only applies to some of the things he listed and not others. Hence it's easier to express that what you are saying is your opinion and then use hyperbole (i.e. "you are doing it wrong") to make a concise point.
The OP does this prior to going into their list of gripes:
> This should be its own blog post (one I’m planning on writing) but these are some of my general issues with how I see teams use git. I apologise in advance for any hurt feelings but here goes…
It's only them definitively claiming that "I'm right and you are wrong" when taken out of context from the surrounding article text. But within the context of that article, it's just a use of hyperbole to make a concise point.
Sure but only out of context. If you take the context of the OP's lead in to the git discussion (where they state that it's only their opinion and that teams having their own ways of using git is perfectly justified), it's just a use of hyperbole to make a more pointed and concise argument.
He's right and they're wrong, though, sometimes that's just how it is. (In an actual project setting "this is wrong" incorporates by reference the thing I wrote down once so I don't have to repeat it)
But the OP literally says that it's their personal opinion and that teams all have their own ways of using git prior to going into their personal gripes with how people use or under-utilise git:
> Every software team in the world has its own culture and ways of doing things, which is all good but when I see teams using git as a glorified `ctrl + s` it really breaks my heart.
>
> This should be its own blog post (one I’m planning on writing) but these are some of my general issues with how I see teams use git. I apologise in advance for any hurt feelings but here goes…
It's not "I'm right, you're wrong", it's hyperbole. They are using an exaggeration to drive home a point and at the same time making that point in a more concise manner.
This kind of over dramatizing is tiresome. "Demonic chords" (what's a demonic chord, anyway? Are bees buzzing in a tritone? Are bee hives playing chords?), talking about it sounding like a 1920's vampire movie, etc. Sure makes it sound like nothing in the world could be more creepy.
Then you go and watch a video demonstrating this effect, and it's more like the humming/buzzing sound from the hive is... slower. That's it. It's just slower, lower frequency.
