My first character was a "muppet-born" named Ché-Elmo, who interacted with the group over video chat directly (a hand-puppet Elmo with a red star cap was all they saw and heard), and was a Warlock who had made a pact with the being Carl Marx in exchange for power. His tome of power was Das Kapital, which I'd have him leaf through while we played.
He went missing a few years ago; it's my belief that he's out there now in some other dimension still sticking it to every merchant he encounters.
"Woman are you going to be able to get the kids"
Lmao this is not how I talk, nor do I have an SO nor kids. Though maybe that's for the best going by autocomplete
That's most of what we do today.
Every web app you use right now - which is most of your day for most users - is just a dumb terminal UI hitting some API on some foreign computer.
Plan 9 uses the file system as a way of interacting with apis. Linux took this idea directly by copying in the/proc filesystem from 9, which are not bytes on a disk but are instead the kernel presenting its running processes in the format of files and directories in your file namespace, and with which you can interact to control those processes.
It also took this idea and created FUSE - file systems in user space - so that you can do the same thing on Linux as a user, but with not quite the same ease you have on plan 9 - and notably, fuse file systems are not naturally network file systems, and so you can't export them as easily to the network as you can with nine machines, where it's implicit.
Last, Linux took the idea of per-process namespaces from 9, setting the stage for all of the docker, snap, etc. tools we use today.
In short, a lot of nine already is mainstream because it's been adopted by Linux. However, using plan 9 and then returning back to Linux feels like putting on bulky gloves, because Linux did not start with these concepts in mind, but bolted them on after.
/Tinyrant
Grab the pills when you get a chance. The whole milk only has enough vitamin d to offset the amount used by your body to use the calcium in the milk, so it's net zero additional vitamin d in your diet to drink fortified vitamin D milk. If you're like me, you'll feel a significant difference.
No. This is a result of thinking of natural selection as working towards an "absolute" better and away from an "absolute" weaker, as opposed to pushing in directions that are entirely defined by the situation.
Natural selection is this: in populations that make copies of themselves, and have mistakes in their copies, those mistakes that better fit the situation the copies find themselves in are more likely to be represented in that population later down the line.
Note that I didn't say, at any point, the phrase "SuRvIVaL oF ThE FiTtEsT." Those four words have done great harm in creating a perception that there's some absolute understanding of what's permanently, definitely, forever better, and natural selection was pushing us towards that. But no such thing is going on: a human may have been born smarter than everyone alive and with genes allowing them to live forever, but who died as a baby when Pompeii went off - too bad they didn't have lava protection. Evolution is only an observation that, statistically, mutations in reproduction that better fit the scenario a given population is in tend to stick around more than those that don't - and guess what? That's still happening, even to humans - it's just that with medical science, we're gaining more control of the scenario our population exists in.
Now, can we do things with medical science - or science in general - that hurts people? Sure, there's plenty of class action lawsuits where people sued because someone claimed their medicine was good and it turned out to be bad. But if you're asking "are we losing out on some 'absolute better' because we gained more control of the world we reproduce in," no, there is no "absolute" better. There's only "what's helpful in the current situation," and medicine lets us change the situation instead being forced to deal with a given situation, dying, and hoping one of our sibling mutated copies can cope.
Yep, and notably - add 15 minutes, because that's about how long it takes to fall asleep on average. You can use sleepyti.me as a calculator if you're lazy like me and want to know when to go to bed
"update doc to reflect reality still more"
A negative income tax system has the same incentive as our current bracketed tax system to earn more money: for every dollar you earn, even if a higher percentage gets taken out on that next dollar, you still have more money now.
It just shifts our brackets down so that you get "negatively taxed" - given money - for the lowest brackets of income. But a person making $100k would still be given say $15k for the first $10k of their income, $5k for next $10k, taxed at 9% for the next $10k, 20% the following $10k, so on and so forth - so that every dollar they make still means more money in their pocket, it's just a percentage less for the additional dollars as they move brackets. Considering that's already how it works, it seems no incentive changes would arise for high earners.
This is the "Negative Income Tax", popularized by famously conservative Federal Reserve chair Milton Friedman as the approach to community support that best meshed with supply/demand.
The classic joke: "Do you know how journalists count? 'One, two, trend'."
Finally I can add to the list:
and now,