the most infuriating combination of address and search boxes
From a UX perspective, those are both ways to start a navigation to a new page, and it's almost always clear from context which is intended (is the string formatted as a URL? Treat it as such. Otherwise, treat it as a search string). The only hiccup is when actually searching for strings that look like a URL (no whitespace, includes periods), but that happens rarely enough that I'm perfectly happy to manually go to a search engine for those cases. Otherwise, Cmd+L-"type my thoughts"-Enter works smoothly for me in both cases (on Firefox for personal laptop, or Chrome for work one).
What are the issues that you experience with this combined flow?
Mastodon is to Twitter as Lemmy is to Reddit.
Tikka Masala is an Indian-Inspired dish which was invented in the UK by people with Indian cultural heritage. That's about as concise a description as you can get without running into difficulties of definition - there's no consistent way of defining what "being a dish" means without running into contradictions.
In fact General Tso's is the perfect counter-example: Multiple Chinese people have told me they enthusiastically disown General Tso's Chicken and explicitly call it American food. So if we say "a dish belongs to a country if it's invented there", then Tikka Masala is British (which I agree "feels" wrong); but if we say "a dish belongs to a country if it was inspired by the cuisine of that country", then General Tso's is Chinese, which, apparently not!
And that's without even considering the question of how far "back" you should go with inspiration - what if a dish was inspired by how the Indians used food they got from the Persians who traded it with the Chinese - is it Indian food or Chinese food? (Idk if that's historically nonsense, but you get my point) Why is the most-recent ancestor more important than the environment of creation?
"A man crying about a chicken and a baby? I thought this was supposed to be a comedy!"
The Justice Of Kings by Richard Swan
He's a friend of mine! This is the first time I've seen organic mention of the book - very cool!
pay-once-cry-once situation
I've never heard this phrase, and I'm struggling to figure it out from context. Does it mean that you regret the purchase after finding out it's not as good as you thought, but then don't replace it with something better because you don't want to spend more?
Helps that Lemmy has orders of magnitude less content. After the third time refreshing with no new content, it gets much easier to put the phone down.
"they could just as easily present them in a way that wouldn't be blocked" would be a more accurate way of phrasing it. Facebook is not the one blocking this content - rather, it's detecting that it has been blocked (clientside)
I feel like you're using "supercede" differently to the rest of us. You're getting a hostile reaction because it sounded like you're saying that EM is no longer at all useful because it has been obsoleted (superceded) by QM. Now you're (correctly) saying that EM is still useful within its domain, but continuing to say that QM supercedes it. To me, at least, that's a contradiction. QM extends EM, but does not supercede it. If EM were supercedes, there would be no situation in which it was useful.
"X depends on or is built up on Y" does not imply "X is Y". Concepts, laws, techniques, etc. can depend or be higher-order expressions of QM without being QM. If you started asking a QM scientist about tensile strength or the Mohs scale they would (rightly) be confused.
With the jobmarket the way it is?
Historically awful? Don't get me wrong, the advice is still solid, but this was a weird way to preface it - it's the hardest time in my 10-year career to "just find a new job".
That came across my recommendation queue the other day - despite my dislike for horror, it looks interesting enough that I might check it out!
Wel, I guess I'm rewatching that tonight...
(For the uninitiated: Thomas Middleditch and Ben Schwartz, aka "the guy from Silicon Valley and Jean-Ralphio from Parks & Rec", did an improv series on Netflix - and it's great)
The way the score is calculated is hidden from the public
I mean.....technically, I guess, the specific parameters are hidden? But the meaningful actions - the ways in which you can improve your score - are extremely clearly advertized.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a passionate advocate for the system - but it's nowhere near as obfuscated as people claim. And if you accept the premise that there needs to be some algorithmic way to evaluate someone's creditworthiness, "their past reliability in repaying debts" is a pretty reasonable choice.