I don't view social media justice as positively as you do. Even when it seems like the person really deserves it, those subreddits etc. that exist for no reason other than to gawk at terrible moments in other people's lives aren't doing anyone any favors. There are no limits on the length or severity or appropriateness of the punishment.
At the same time, the worst of society doesn't seem all that cool to me but it could just be unusual times.
It doesn't mean forever but it is widely understood to mean that there is no foreseeable resolution in the near future. I think most of us know to avoid the word unless we're signaling some degree of permanence.
Indefinitely doesn't imply permanence to me. I take it as meaning what it means: there is no reasonable prediction for when the situation will be resolved. Which seems correct for this case.
Only if they can prove that your lipservice caused the damage in question, which should be avoidable with the use of antistatic lipstick and regular blotting to ensure the lips are suitably dry.
Now the US is way ahead of the game here compared to Europe. There are no property taxes in most of Europe and families hang on to their homes for generations.
I know for a fact (through living here) that Denmark and probably the rest of Scandinavia has property tax and inheritance tax -- holding on to family property is almost as expensive as buying new property.
Which part of Europe are you referring to? I once had Greek colleague who complained about having to maintain three generations worth of houses, so that might be one place where things are as you describe?
Right, Europe is bound to be diverse on this point. I have exposure to Balkan countries and the UK (which, while they do have non-zero rates, still have them far lower what I'm used to in New England).
I think you can argue migration (forced) through history is tied to this. The US was a recent star in growth due to free land. But there is no more free land. And Mars does not fill that role. We need to disempower rentiers.
Wouldn't this just reduce land entitlement for those who aren't wealthy enough to afford the new taxes? I think something like taxes that apply for people who own more than 1 property would be better.
Car analogies aren't intrinsically bad, they are just the go-to analogy when someone wants to jam an analogy where it isn't needed. Analogies in general should be used sparingly, and only in an explanatory setting. Instead people use them as a rhetorical device in arguments, which usually reduces the argument to arguing about the analogy (and you can usually shuffle around the parts of an analogy to flip the meaning somehow).
Here it is fine I think, the writer of the comment is just explaining their point of view.
Analogies should only be used like trains: An efficient, well thought out path from point A to B on a vehicle that is piloted by a pro. Car analogies look appealing -- they look more flexible, but this can also lead to people taking overly circuitous routes to get to the point... maybe the driver just doesn't know what they are doing, maybe the road system is poorly optimized because it needs to hit lots of points, or maybe the driver is like a sneaky cab driver that intentionally takes an inefficient path to increase the fare.
The wider availability also leads to a situation where cars are mostly piloted by random people with no particular qualifications other than a basic license. This can result in lots of car crashes. Of course, it is also possible for a train to get derailed, but this is a rare occurrence. On the other hand a derailing can result in more damage... ah... hmm, I forget where I was going with this...
I think the car analogy is just extending a base analogy. There could be other siblings. Perhaps AnimalAnalogy could extend BaseAnalogy and we could talk about animals instead? ;)
Indeed. All cars suffer the same speed limits and traffic, so how effective your car is ultimately depends on how you drive within those constraints. The analogy slyly condenses everything down to some car-manufacturer-marketing version of "fun", betraying both spirited drivers and whatever topic it is applied to.
Since we're throwing out analogies, Java-the-language is more like a riding lawnmower. It is capable of getting you to your destination, but will be slow and painful the entire time. There is probably some external constraint that you'll be forced to endure this, like losing your license.
This was something / part of the plot of The First $20 Million Is Always the Hardest. I recall the main character getting a car (turned out to be rented) that was really fast and taking the team out driving on 101 in rush hour traffic to make this point.
I remember an intermediate OO class in Java 20 years ago... the existence of the El Camino was proof of the terribleness of both multiple inheritance and car analogies.
Known a few people who also kept spare bed (sometimes in same room) for occasional use. For example, if one partner is sick, if one has to sleep early for early departure, etc.
A lot of what is labeled and sold as "SEO" might as well be diet fraud. Plagiarism, false advertising, astroturfing, etc. It certainly isn't just letting the Google bot know what your website is about.
I agree, though I think it's fair play to try and do things that the Google algorithm likes...but are not directly related to quality.
Say somewhere in the bowels of their ML pipelines, features that get scored include things like "has a favicon.ico and it's unique and not seen elsewhere". Well, then doing that isn't really fraud to me. It's just adding "proxies for quality" so you aren't dinged for not having them.
I don't think of myself as the kind of person to cause an "incident" but this might do it. A security escort out of that nightmare might be worth the consequences and embarrassment.
At the same time, the worst of society doesn't seem all that cool to me but it could just be unusual times.