Holy shit powertotys run is the one of the only reasons i can tolerate windows 11 on a works laptop.
Local admin to go digging through group policy settings, just so i don't have to scroll past 2 pages of ads and internet results in the start menu to open fucking "settings"?
They can absolutely fuck right off with that.
i think we are mostly in agreement, though I'll address a couple points of contention on my side.
I think likening racism to political centrism, which is, again, what you are agreeing with, is not an apt comparison. You’re agreeing with a commenter above that said “the middle ground between racism and not racism is 50% racism”
I wasn't necessarily trying to equate racism with political centrism, i was using that comment as an example of how the idea of 'centrism' isn't always a viable or practical one.
it could just as easily have been "The middle ground between wet and dry is 50% wet".
Then if you happen to be a centrist, if you happen to be in the middle, as I’ve met many centrists, they exist. And again, it is probably the most viable of all of the political ideologies, if not for corruption and political manipulation to herd the population into either Democrat or Republican sides
But you can see that this reads " This would be the best option if it was possible, but it isn't, currently " ?
I agree with the sentiment, though i disagree that the optimal location is the "centre" , as i said before.
And it seems you agree given the follow up about the partially siding with trump being ridiculous.
As i was saying before i don't think centrism is a good label for what you are describing because it isn't really the centre of anything, it's some other thing on a whole spectrum of things.
I think that using the label "centrism" hurts any argument significantly more than it helps and coming up with some other , more accurate way of describing your position would greatly benefit any discussion around that area.
But labeling and categorising things is hard, especially in a concise and descriptive manner and as you say modern political conditioning tends towards thinking in rigid boxes.
As a complete aside (and a contrived , though i'd say accurate description):
In an effective two party system a vote that doesn't correspond with either of the two sides is effectively a vote for the ultimate victor.
This isn't a commentary on the politics of either side, i mean this as general statement on how voting would effectively work in that kind of system.
Assuming you agree with that point of view, how do you reconcile the potential ethical and moral outcomes of not voting at all ?
Genuine question, zero baiting.
Disliking politics and all the current political parties doesn't fit the technical definition of a centrist.
It's not that centrism can't exist, it's that it's commonly used as a thin pretense to cover actual partisan leanings, usually right-wing (by the general global metric, not just the US one).
Additionally, abstinence isn't commonly a good approach by which to assert a legitimately central stance. A lot of the time a legitimately central stance doesn't exist in a practical sense.
As stated by a commenter above "The middleground between racism and not racism is 50% racism".
I personally think the concept of "centrism" isn''t viable, not because nuance and context can't exist but because the "center" often isn't a useful target.
nowhere in the history of language has “there should be such a thing” meant or even implied “making such a thing is easy”
I know its hyperbole but you can't possible back that statement up.
if anything it implies the opposite.
It doesn't, but i agree it didn't really imply the difficulty was high either.
I wasn't saying the reply was correct, i was stating the intended meaning (at least as i see it).
To answer to your original post, design platforms with version control exist.
Some use git under the hood, some don't, most don't require you to understand git to use them.
Hopefully that saves you some time as now you don't have to build the platform from scratch.
Downsides for sure, but it does work.
So, benefit of the doubt time.
That's some mental gymnastics in there but let's see if we can get it.
So the reply isn't actually suggesting you create the platform for designers, they are pointing out that there is a lot more to competent platform/software design than it seems, so try it yourself and find out.
If it turns out you do in fact have the answers, great, we now have the platform you described.
Chances are you'll find out just how difficult it is to do what you are suggesting and realise that implying someone could "just" create a platform for designers isn't particularly realistic.
I think you meant to reply to the poster above.
I have exactly the same issue though, a full rack switch and nas that i can't easily downsize to 10 inche dimensions.
I could probably just buy/build something that would fit but i can't justify it at all.
Do you mean in the sense that there's not enough competition/variety in the existing types of available tech or that there are types of tech that you can't find at all?
both ?
It's similar in etymology to mum's the word iirc
remained private
No problem. Outside perspectives are usually interesting to explore.
I hate the idea that I’m falling for some sort of pseudoscience and weigh that against (a) how it tangibly helped me, and (b) whether we simply haven’t found the proper way to test its efficacy properly
Perhaps a different approach might help.
[ I will caveat the following with : i am not , in any way, qualified to give any psychological advice or medical suggestions, this is not that, it's just my personal opinion. ]
Rather than try and figure out if the test itself is flawed or not, look at the outcome instead.
Based on how you described it, it wasn't the specific methodology itself that was helpful to you.
You can take whatever positives you experienced and explore them completely independently.
Does it matter that you used a potentially flawed methodology to come to a useful conclusion about yourself ?
Would you mind elaborating on “control the context to eliminate bias and gaming” under this situation?
Sure, apologies if you already know any of this.
As with other scientific fields, there are guidelines and processes in place to evaluate the structure and approach for research.
iirc you don't technically have to adhere to them, but it will certainly be a point of industry and peer criticism if you don't, sometimes leading to papers not being accepted for journals and other more esoteric consequences.
This is one of the reasons proper peer review is important.
A basic example would be picking from (or narrowing to) an appropriate subset of the population.
If you were trying to perform research with the goal of evaluating the population as a whole, running your experiment exclusively with women between the ages of 18-25 would immediately be picked up as a reason the results can't be trusted (in terms of the stated goal).
A slightly less obvious example (for certain kinds of experiments) would be sentence structure and unconscious bias through contextual information.
When wording questions and examples it is easy to introduce a bias in the tone and word choice, which can affect the outcome of the research.
A real world example of the unconscious bias aspect is hiring discrimination : https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/the-resume-bias-how-names-and-ethnicity-influence-employment-opportunities
A simplistic summary is that there is a bias (unconscious or otherwise) against people with "ethnic" sounding names on their resume.
There is, of course, more nuance to it than that, but still.
This is much less cut and dry because sometimes the bias is the thing being studied and forms a part of the test, which is why when creating these kinds of experiments the process is carefully evaluated and revised, hopefully by multiple people.
Another one you touched upon already is context, the time of day, life events, general disposition etc.
Good test design will try to account for as much of this as possible (though it's unlikely to remove it all entirely).
Obviously the more questions asked, the more granular the results can become, so I’ll grant that.
That's not always strictly true, quality is also important and there are diminishing returns on quantity, the length of a questionnaire can sometimes have it's own effect on the results for instance.
This relates to your final point: What would I consider to be the test’s objectives? For me, it’s an exercise in gleaning insight into one’s own personality; to help with reflection and introspection. To identify your strengths and weaknesses. In some sense, to provide some identity. I can’t tell you how I felt understood. I actually teared up while reading the analysis for the first time. As something of an outsider for much of my life it was like it filled in the missing pieces I long suspected and yet always doubted. Like I said I can’t speak for what others got out of the test, but it was the best therapy I ever received. (And for context, I read every other generalized group to make sure it wasn’t generalized astrological bullshit where every description could match every person, for which nothing came close).
It sounds like this experience was/is of great use to you. I've heard similar things about ADHD and ASD diagnoses.
Finding your tribe/place sounds great.
What i would say is that people who don't have this level of resonance with the results could well see it less favourably than you.
That isn't necessarily because they performed the test (or interpreted the result) incorrectly, it could just mean less to them.
I'm aware i'm cherry picking here.
Scientists do this all the time.
They do, with strict guidelines about how they can strictly control the context to eliminate bias and gaming (as much as they can anyway).
The only substantive arguments that I’ve seen made – and the only “debunking” aspects to this test revolve around veracity and validity – which is understandably concerning. But let’s unpack that: Do the results bear repeatability, and do what the results say reflect the reality of who that person is?
I could very well be reading this incorrectly but are you saying that veracity and validity are known concerns and then follow that up with "Can we verify? Are the results useful?"
I wouldn't consider restating the questions that represent the known concerns as unpacking said concerns.
misunderstanding of the test’s objectives.
Genuine question, what would you consider to be the test's objectives ?
This ^ hot take is brought to you by the same people who ask " If you don't believe in god what is stopping you from raping and murdering your whole neighborhood? "
it's an alt-space launcher.
you press alt+space, a little box pops up in the centre of the screen and works the way the search box in the start menu is supposed to work.
No ads, no internet search results, just application and file search, perhaps some cheeky addition or multiplication.