Can we add brushing and flossing to this?

I don’t know why I thought this one was older. Wow!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini’s_law

He didn’t retract anything or express regret (because there was nothing to retract or regret). He did explain what he meant.

So, as I understand, in the classical meaning, that is an apology. But in the contemporary meaning, it is not.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/the-history-of-the-word-apology

The word’s earliest meaning in English was “something said or written in defense or justification of what appears to others to be wrong or of what may be liable to disapprobation."

…

So we may instead ask when did the apology start meaning “I’m sorry”?

edit: He also expressed sympathy. Or empathy. I suck at telling the difference.

"That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make, but I understand that felt either ill-timed or unclear, or maybe both. And for those who think I did point a finger, I get why you’re upset. If the situation was reversed, there’s a good chance I’d have felt the same way.

I don’t know if this is a decent source, but at least it’s context.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15089705/Security-suspicious-hand-signals-Charlie-Kirk.html

You’re constantly, gradually turning downward, technically.

My BS in CS took its roots down to CMOS composition of logic gates and basic EE, on the hardware side, and down to deriving numbers and arithmetic from Boolean logic / predicate calculus, on the philosophy side. Then tied those up together through the theoretical underpinnings of computation and problem solving, like a trunk, and branched back out into the various mainstream technologies that derived from all that. It obviously all depends on the program at the school of choice, I suppose, and I’m sure it’s evolved over the years, but it still seems important to have at least some courses that pull back the wizard’s curtain to ensure their students really see how it’s all just an increasingly elaborate, high-tech version of conceptually simple (in function) machinery carrying out fundamental building blocks of logic.

Anyway, I’m going to go sniff my own cinnamon roll scented farts while gazing in the mirror, now.

Also Ctrl-u to clear the command line.

You’re right. Not sure why you’d be down voted, other than if people found your conclusion a bit heavy.

I resist because I’m literate enough to know that “dove” is a bird that rhymes with “love”.

His Amurica Bible came with a copy of the constitution. Did that omit the same things? If not, I don’t believe he’d be trying to change just an online copy while there are hard copies with his name on them. What would be the point? Just the assumption that anyone who bought his copy is obviously never going to read it?

I’m at peace with balanced underscores (like “dunder name equals dunder main”) and the internal ones for snake case, but in the unbalanced ones (prefixing unders and dunders for pseudo-private) still bug me. But at least, conventionally, it’s visually the same idea as Hungarian notation.

For physics enthusiasts, I’d also suggest “floatheadphysics” for his depictions and sometimes cathartic presentation style. I love how he broke down special relativity in an easily understood way.

Then I’ve also really been enjoying “For The Love of Physics” for his style of showing some of the math. His style is more of a classroom presentation, but in a way that reminds me of my most effective professors that made their lessons as easy to consume as mac and cheese.

I’m inclined to hit some online courses someday, too, but, for now, these have been great for conceptual stuff and my curiosity vs. time balance.

deleted by creator

“Abesede” is getting too close to “obesity”, but I think “Absedee” works. But yeah, people need to stop trying to use letters and symbols to replace the phonemes of that letter’s name.

That reminds me, I had a ride share driver named Blas, and I had to giggle and tell them about it.

Duolingo? Mine still has dark mode. Maybe just for subscriptions?

There is just something really amazing about being able to communicate directly between two points on the planet by bouncing EM waves off layers of the atmosphere. Like, imagine two people hundreds of miles apart are shining flashlights (or torches, if you prefer) at the distant sky, just above the horizon, and seeing the sky glow from each other’s beams signaling each other. At the right frequencies and with the right conditions, certain atmospheric layer boundaries become reflective, like the boundary between air and water, so imagine that distant sky looks a little glossy up there, like water’s surface reflecting your beam.

But then run that light source through a machine that does that flickering signal fast enough to encode your voice in the pattern of flickering that’s glowing in the sky over someone else’s horizon.

That’s pretty closely analogous to what amateur (“ham”) radio operators are doing when they play with the HF range of the radio spectrum. The electronics are less sophisticated than cell phones, but our usual gadgets rely on many other devices to relay info across the Internet (which is also amazing, in a different way). Ham radio, on the other hand, is like a fancy version of talking through two cans on a string, sometimes up to thousands of miles apart, but using fast flash lights instead of string and cans.

Username checks out.

The inherent problem with that is how few there are. Don’t get me wrong–yes, let’s do that, too.

deleted by creator