ihateloggingin

8 ms·

1.
by ihateloggingin 12y ago
Do see the "limitations" section: github-backup is repository-focused. It does not try to back up other information from GitHub. In particular, social network stuff, like users who are following you, is not backed up. github-backu
2.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Microwave just the water, then put the teabag in after. Then it will taste the same.
3.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
It deletes the remote branch entirely, and then uploads the local branch.
4.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
This has nothing to do with git. It has to do with github. Git already prohibits forced pushes if you use 'git init --shared' to create your repo.
5.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Speed bumps such as being required to specify --force?
6.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
> his continued assertion that he should not have been allowed to do this thing that he did. Well, if the repositories were created with "git init --shared" then it wouldn't have been allowed. I think it's a valid pos
7.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Put otherwise: to sort them all it's O(n/5*(5 log 5)) = O(n).
8.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
There's some choice involved in whether to have children... until you have them. There's also some choice involved in whether you are making enough money to support your children -- but not that much.
9.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
In poor countries, children are an economic win because they can be made to work for their parents. In rich countries, children are an economic loss because they can't be (both by law and because child labor is not in demand).
10.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Sunlight does not approach the cost of zero when there is private ownership of land. The legal right to collect the sunlight is attached to the land. Securing that legal right costs money.
11.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
It kind of sounds good but then you realize it's completely insane. Do you want to go back to pre-industrial agriculture?? That is a waste of land. There probably is not enough even land for it anymore; even if there were, it would
12.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Just because you're billing $40/hr doesn't mean you're well above marginally employed. We're talking about a 2 hour gig here. There's likely to be at least 2 unbillable hours involved in a 2 hour gig gig, so y
13.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
> I want my house cleaned for less than $80 (note: 2 hour job). First of all, I doubt there's anywhere in the USA you couldn't get responses to a craigslist ad offering $40/hr for house cleaning. Second, a 2hr/month g
14.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
> It's $80 for 2 hours. You can survive within commuting distance of Manhattan on $15/hour Not if you only get two hours of work! That $80 for 2 hours has thousands of dollars in opportunity costs.
15.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Actually we could just refuse to enforce contracts in which future BI income is leveraged for debt. That's already done with certain kinds of retirement assets.
16.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Even with BI guaranteed to all, not everyone would receive it because of income tax withholdings.
17.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
So... if a restaurant owner gets his rocks off by forcing the waitresses to blow him, that's fine as long as the place is profitable?
18.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
You talk about poor people as if they are a different kind of human being from "normal" people. In fact, 80% of USA citizens are poor at _some_ point in their life. _Most_ people experience poverty. It's not necessarily bec
19.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Generally it works so that you get paid to do things for rich people, but if you do those things for poor people you don't get paid.
20.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
You can have A/C, cable TV, meals, and still have a totally unstable housing situation, unable to maintain personal property over the long-term... Sorry but just because TV is cheap doesn't mean poverty is eliminated. Keep an ey
21.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Why is it a problem? Someone wants to live modestly, trading consumer power for free time. Why do we need to stop them?
22.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Ah, but it's not libertarian in the sense of total sovereignty for owners. The workers would start to backtalk!
23.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
They don't, actually. "socially beneficial activities that are not compensated" -- doesn't apply equally well. "most efficiently delivered through a direct cash transfer, rather than through a means-tested or other
24.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
It would be if you lied to people and told them that you made the pens. The example you chose is deliberately one in which it would be assumed that you were not asserting authorship. Frankly, choosing that example shows you're dishone
25.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
Smirnoff is nowhere near the cheapest vodka. That's not a bottom shelf vodka. It is literally not on the bottom shelf of liquor stores. C.f. Popov vodka for literally _half_ the price of Smirnoff (and literally on the bottom shelf).
26.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
I don't really care about ATF regulations, but there is no moral high ground here. This was just plagiarism. These people pretended to have done something that they did not do. They took credit for someone else's work. So &quot
27.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
This is the opposite of central planning. It lets everyone decide what to do with the money themselves.
28.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
> I would need a much larger subsistence wage to survive in the SF bay area than I would in most other places in the country. Plenty of people live in the SF bay area with no BI at all.
29.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
The other poster's concern is obviously punishing the undeserving poor. However, the point of the article here is to assume that millions will be "free loaders" no matter what we do because their labor is unnecessary.
30.
by ihateloggingin 13y ago
We just need to adjust social attitudes so that it's accepted that passive income is the right of everyone, not just 1%.

More ›