psycotica0

Can't tell if trolling, quipping, or honestly asking...

I feel like some people who don't want friends are often people with low self esteem who have decided their hypothetical future friends will abandon them, or not like them, or whatever, and so they convince themselves that they "don't want that anyway" as a way of protecting themselves from future pain or embarrassment. In those cases, dating aside, the person should work on their self esteem.

If it's not that, one could try casual hookup apps. These rely on a certain amount of work, and there's no guarantee, especially if one lives in a less populated area, but it's possible.

And the third option for someone who doesn't want anything social and just wants sex, is sex work. This is exactly what it can be for! The only trouble is that in most places it's illegal, which pushes it underground, making it both difficult to find and potentially dangerous... but this is the niche it's meant to occupy.

But honestly... at least consider that it may be the first case, and see if you can search your feelings to figure out "why".

One thing you could try, if you haven't, is dating someone you connect with, and have a fun time with, even without "romantic spark". Attraction can be important in a relationship, but in a long term relationship spark often doesn't last anyway, and it's other things that actually keep people together. Getting along well, working well together, handling stress in complementary ways, etc, are all more valuable long term.

So just as an experiment you could try dating someone for something "long", but not actually that long in the grand scheme of things. Maybe 3 months, roughly one season. Even if you're not physically attracted to them, try dating them anyway. If it doesn't work, you haven't actually lost anything. Just a bit of time. And you will have officially "had a girlfriend", and gained some amount of relationship experience, even if it wasn't the best.

And if it just so happens that you're just not an "early term" guy, buf you're actually a pretty good "mid-term" guy, then that's great! Keep going! You haven't got a lot to lose, in a sense, so you're available for experimentation.

I'm not 100% sure it's being used correctly here, but entrapment in general is when a police officer convinces or coerces a person into committing a crime, and then arresting them for that crime. So, if a police office is standing somewhere and you walk up to them and ask to buy drugs, they can arrest you for that. But if they are like "hey man, want to buy some drugs? Come on, it's only $10. You know what, for you, first time is free. Just take them", and then you take them, that is entrapment.

The reason entrapment is problematic is because it's hard to tell if you would have committed a crime, had the officer not pushed you into it. Maybe you were just feeling pressured and wanted the uncomfortable situation to go away, etc.

As for not exposing entrapped people, there is this moral dilemma in general that often gets dramaticized in cop shows and movies, which is that the person we know is guilty gets away on a technicality or procedural issue. And at first blush that looks like a flaw. But actually it's more like the lesser evil of a bad situation. Because what we don't want is police using powers that erode the freedoms of the innocent people, like breaking into people's homes and going through their stuff, or wire tapping, or torture, or whatever. Things we don't want police to do to innocent people.

If doing these things were "frowned upon", but we still used the information we gained from it anyway, then it would be a viable police strategy. It's a cost of doing business, but it gets the job done. Even if a single officer got fired for it, they could choose to matryr themselves to do the bad thing and get the guy. But we don't want cops doing these things, because anything they do against a person they think might be guilty is something they could be doing to a person that's actually innocent. So we kinda have to make the rule be that any information, no matter how good, that was gotten in a bad way becomes bad information that we all agree never to use. Because that's the only way to make sure the police don't want to do the bad things.

It may let some guilty people go free, when the police screw up, but in theory it protects all of us against an escalating police state.

I'm not so sure. I think it's 奚住 all kinda squished together.

I don't think that's a word, though... At least my dictionary doesn't have it.

I don't normally do this, but I see this from time to time, so just so you know:

wary: feeling or showing caution about possible dangers or problems.

leery: cautious or wary due to realistic suspicions

weary: feeling or showing tiredness, especially as a result of excessive exertion or lack of sleep

I'm sorry if this was annoying rather than helpful!

Groceries, in particular, are more of an effect than a cause. Lots of people live without cars in New York City, or London, or Paris, or Toronto, or Tokyo, and they manage to eat. The reason you need to buy 7 days worth of food for two people all at once is because you live in a field far away from everything. "Getting Groceries" becomes a special trip, because, while driving, leaving the highway, stopping and parking are inconvenient.

As a pedestrian in a city, I was going to walk past 5 food stores on my way between work and home anyway, and it's really not problem to walk in and buy only what I ran out of yesterday, or some special item I wanted for tonight's dinner. It's simple to shop for 5 or 10 minutes, five times a week, rather than one hour once a week, and never need more than a single bag of groceries at a time. And rather than being inconvenient, it's actually great because I'm only buying what I need right now, the things I'm going to use as soon as I get home, so it's very simple.

Allergies could be tricky, yeah. If you're lucky the local shop, by nature of being smaller and more local, actually knows you and knows you need this stuff and stocks it because they know you'll buy it from them. But that's not a guarantee, for sure. That having been said, if the only people driving were people with corn allergies, the roads would be a much safer place!

Some tips:

• Unless the code is very small, or your feature is very big, try to put blinders on, and focus only on the code you absolutely need to to get your feature built. Use search tools to comb through the code to find the relevant methods while reading as little surrounding code as possible, tweak those methods to be different, and call that a first draft. If the maintainer wants the code refactored or differently arranged, they can help with that as part of the review process
• Being unable to build sucks, it really does. But if the software is released for your platform, it means someone out there is able to build it. And these days that someone is often an automated build tool that runs per release. See if you can figure out how this tool works. What build steps it uses, what environment it runs in, etc. If you can't figure that out, try contacting the person who releases the builds
• If the software is in apt (if you're on a Debian-based system), you can use apt build-dep, apt source, and debuild to try and recreate the native apt build process. These tools will give you the source that built the system package, and its dependencies, and allow you to build a deb yourself out of it. Test the build to make sure it's working as-is. If it is, and if the software's dependencies haven't changed too much, you can even use apt to fetch the old version that's in the repos, update the code to reflect the upstream release, and then test the build there to see if it still builds. If so, now you have something you can start working off.
• If you aren't on an apt system, but do have a package manager, I assume there's an equivalent to the workflow mentioned above
• If your change is subtle enough that you think it's pretty low-risk, you could just edit the code even though you can't build it. This might be sufficient for bug-fixes where you just need to check something is greater than zero, or features where you pass a true instead of a false in certain conditions or something. You should probably mention this in your PR / MR / Patch so the reviewer knows to test building it before merging.
• This one is a bit wild, but let's say you're on a Mac or Windows machine, and the build instructions only work for Linux. You can just run a virtual machine that's got Ubuntu or something running on it, and use it as your build environment. These days you can probably be in a simpler situation with Docker or something more lightweight, but as a worst-case scenario, a full virtual machine is there for you if you need it
• And finally, if the tool isn't a crazy popular or busy tool, it's possible the maintainer or other people in the community are more approachable than you think. If they are looking for contributions, then getting a willing contributor's build environment setup is a benefit to the project. Improving their build docs helps not just you, but potential future contributors as well. A project will usually be more helpful towards someone who says "I'm trying to build this feature, but I'm running into trouble" compared to someone saying "why doesn't your tool do X". You may need to be a bit patient, they're probably doing this on volunteer hours, but they might be happy to help you get your stuff sorted out

Good luck out there, and try not to be discouraged!

Also that's not even a prism, that's a pyramid...

You're not alone! This concept is called Liquid Democracy

Unnecessary info: "wan" is the Japanese equivalent of "woof", and "ko" is a suffix meaning little. "wanko" is a cutesy name for dog, but essentially means "little woof"

I know it would be radical, but you could require that they release the server code open source. So it's not their responsibility to run it, but if the community wants to run it, they can.

Or, if that's complicated due to licensing etc, they could release a minimal server implementation that maybe doesn't scale the same way, but at least has the interfaces covered so the community can take it from there. The game could at least still be played.

Yeah, unfortunately Chromecast is not a standard in that sense. It's a locked down Google thing that you aren't allowed to Self Host. I'm not aware of any compatible implementations, and even if there was one I'd have to assume it involved "stolen" keys or something similarly "forbidden".