That didn’t take long.

I have a few cheap TLDs because as an individual I didn’t want to pay a lot of money for the dot com versions. But I’m not a company.

You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”

Debian aims for rock solid stability

To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).

So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”

You’re right, it’s very likely he wasn’t intending to use a slur. But it seems to me like a lot of the reporting is “he didn’t mean to disrespect people!” when that’s not the case. The pope’s intentions were absolutely to disrespect people, just by his actions, and not by that specific word. the specific phrasing he used to do so doesn’t really matter.

the pope had made the remark while reiterating his position against gay people becoming priests.

It doesn’t matter what word he used, he was using it in an anti LGBT sentiment.

The 87-year-old pontiff was reported as saying that the Catholic seminaries were already too full of … gay men.

Here, I removed the slur. This isn’t any better. Italian fluency wasn’t the problem and didn’t change his argument.

Written by someone with little understanding of the requisite material

The requisite material for the topic at hand is “dating a person who clearly thought there are implied social contracts at play, and attempting to make it work out anyway”

OP is asking about “How do I fit into society?” not “How should society function?”

I agree with you that a lot of implied social contracts are bullshit. But also they exist. Until you have had that talk together to figure out the relationship, there has to be some assumptions. People don’t always have deep “what is this relationship” 2 minutes into the first date. Assumptions are not always bad.

Your stance is that the assumption is “I have no obligations until I’ve agreed to them.” This is itself merely an assumption to make and not just “fact” of some sort. The vast majority of society has the assumption of “The relationship IS an obligation to some degree based on context.” I’m not saying which assumption is “right,” I’m just saying how it works for most people.

If I’m in a relationship where I’m committed enough to refer to the other person as “my partner” then I’m going to err on the side of not hurting them, regardless of who is to blame. If I can prevent the other person from being hurt just by working along with their assumptions until we can have a conversation where we make things explicit and there are no more assumptions, then why wouldn’t I do that, unless “being right” is more important than my partner.

if you didn’t commit to spending the entire evening with her on her birthday

Bad news. This is sound logic, but in NT world, there are all sorts of implied social contracts. Dating someone defaults to “yes you DID commit to spending the evening with her on her birthday, unless otherwise discussed to opt out”.

Not everything needs to be spoken or written down. If I walk into a restaurant but there is no sign that says “please form a line to place your order,” I’m not going to barge to the front and begin ordering, because “form a line and wait your turn” is understood to be how society functions.

You are absolutely not obligated to follow the implied social contracts. And you not obligated to know all of the implied social contracts. But you also don’t get to take the moral high ground on the situation.

she doesn’t have a right to blame you for her hurt

A healthy relationship doesn’t have blame or a scoreboard or anything like that. It REALLY doesn’t matter who is to blame. Try to win an argument by saying “Well you dont have the right to blame me.” It will end more relationships than it will win arguments. If you value the relationship, you want your partner to not hurt regardless of the source/blame. The hurt happened and all you can do is figure out how to prevent the hurt going forward, which will often be by communicating and setting expectations.

Just inviting them to come with isn’t fair to your friend that wanted to hang out with you… You can always make plans with your partner on another day

Or you can make plans with your friend on another day. it is generally considered the “socially acceptable” thing to prioritize someone on special days like birthdays. Even if you have only give a bit more priority on someone’s birthday, I would think that a partner already has enough extra priority that “I will spend time with only you” is not an unreasonable request. It’s also not clear how long OP has been in this relationship. Based on the miscommunications, probably not long. If it’s a serious relationship, then giving your partner extra priority sends the message that you find the relationship serious. Otherwise the message is “you are a priority person in my life and this is a priority day for you, but this other person is even higher priority still.”

Asking them how they feel about you going … understand that you should be able to go do things with your friends and you shouldn’t have to ask permission.

If you ask someone how they feel, and express they would be hurt, but you do the thing anyway, then you are saying that you don’t care if you hurt them, and “Well i didnt know it would hurt you” is now a lie. Your options are to either not hurt them (by talking through the situation until it doesn’t hurt them, or simply not doing the thing), or hurt them. But if you hurt them willingly, you are the one doing damage to your relationship. If you don’t think they are being reasonable, then you may be in a toxic relationship and should end it. If you just don’t care about their feelings, then you are definitely in a bad relationship and should end it. Asking isn’t about “permission”, it is about communicating that you value their input and their feelings.

Life is complicated, so “priority” doesn’t mean that something is the only thing that matters but it does mean that it should factor into your decision making.

In pineapple express they call it “the dopest dope I ever smoked”… But I now realize that movie is almost 20 years old.

Hopefully “we’re still trying to learn what’s best for PC” isn’t some sort of code for “PC players are too whiny and won’t bend the knee, this weekend was bad PR that wasnt worth it. we just won’t release future games on PC”

A spectrum is usually drawn similar to the one on the left. But the point of a spectrum is that its not “where on the spectrum are you”… It is not one point on the spectrum. As drawn on the left, the spectrum represents possibilities. Normally a spectrum would be drawn to indicate how much of each possibility a thing covers.

Eg, the spectrum for light emission of a lamp might be :

Which means it has a bit varying of every color but is heavily green and orange, but probably looks just like white to the naked eye. Swap “green” for “language” etc and you have a spectrum.

Sorry, my phrasing of “not how it works” is more about willingness from the lender side and not “allowed” to. He couldn’t even get a bond for for the reduced amount without going through a shady company. He’s certainly not going to get 4 bonds.

use two or three surety companies, each taking, let’s say, a $50 or $75 million piece to total up to $175 million.

Even with split up bonds to reduce risk in a normal situation, the bonding company is going to assess risk based on the full cost of the bond. They personally only have to put up less money, so the “how much do i lose if everything goes wrong” scenario is less, but “how likely is it something goes wrong” involves “the person on trial for lying about finances doesn’t actually have enough to cover the full bond, so perhaps that increases the odds of me getting my money back”

Why would you throw away $50 million dollars. It’s “less risk” only because it’s less money. But if you think he’s shady enough that likely you never see the money again, then why put up any money, especially if you have to compete with others to get the payout.

If someone said “You can gamble $50 million or $400 million. If you win you get 5%, but the odds of winning are only 10%, and if you lose you only get back $10 million.” You would obviously opt to gamble the $50 million. You want to lose less money. The payout isn’t worth it given the odds. If you were then told “oh, you can just opt out and avoid the dumpster fire of a deal”, you are going to choose to opt out. No amount of “it’s less risk” will make this a good deal for a bonding company.

So yes, syndicating the bond is an option, no smart bonding company is going to touch this, which means even with syndicating it will be hard for him to find enough incompetent, shady, unlicensed bonding companies.

And to be clear, this is not me arguing in favor of why any amount of money was unfair to expect Trump to acquire. This is me pointing out why he’s never going to get the money from legit sources because he’s a financial dumpster fire, and they should just throw the book at him instead of continuously going easy on him.

edit:

But with Donald Trump bragging that he has $500 million cash in the bank, combined with the other assets we know he has in real estate

Trump bragging about made up numbers don’t make anyone more confident about his assets. Both the value of his assets and how much stake in those assets is actually his is a thing he notoriously lies about. He’s even been found guilty about lying about his finances I think.

If he actually had that money money just in the bank, none of this would be an issue, but the thing is… it’s not true.

That’s valid, but even then, a $120m bond is less risk that 4x companies supplying $120m bonds. When the time comes to pay out and you need to get your collateral, if there is only $150m available to actually pay out, you get yours, vs having to split it multiple ways, or otherwise not getting a payout at all.

And that’s assuming you can get 4x companies to even throw in $120m. He is so unreliable that had to get an unlicensed company to even get that much, so I doubt he’s going to find 4x legit companies to team up.

But then again, requiring the full amount should still just be enforced. If no one wants to provide bond, thats his problem, not the court’s. I certainly don’t get to say “Well I can’t get bond” and get to have the amount lowered. If I say that, I just don’t get to appeal.

Thats not how loans necessarily work though. If I go to a bank and ask for $100m, but they see I already owe $350m to other lenders, they’ll say no, because they know they arent getting paid back until after the other 3. So if they think trump has $450m in assets, just give him whole amount, and if they don’t think he has that much, any money theyre giving him is just being thrown away.

This is a guy notorious for lying about his assets and not paying debts. Even giving him $125m is a bad idea, but the odds of getting paid back get even worse if you arent first in line.

Its enough for me too. But not everyone has the same use case and environment. I definitely see why someone would want this.

What I disagree with is that it needs to communicate to the internet to do this. It adds delay and potential for outage if your internet is out. But they do this so they can force you to get their app and milk you for extra data to sell. Internet capable smart devices are to harvest data not grant features. Features could be done better by ZigBee and a hub, but that doesnt grant the device a way to phone home

Oh good, if that is all true, you wont have to change anything to be compliant with new laws and should have no issue with them.

Hopefully. The thing about social platforms is that if everyone else leaves and doesnt tell them to fuck right off, it can get lonely. Xmpp still exists and im sure some people use it successfully, but its definitely not the same scale it once was

The cross platform friend requests bugs mean I still havent been able to play with the friends who convinced me to buy the game in the first place. But yeah, otherwise quite fun.

Its 100x better of a starship troopers game than the actual starship troopers game that came out last year

I still find it super weird. A (remote) coworker bought an ioniq 5 after 9 months on a wait list… 3 months later, I went to a dealership. they had one on the lot (3 actually). Was able to get one with 0 wait.

Looking at their website, they have 4 2024 ioniq 5s available right now, an SEL, SE, and 2x Limited.

So apparently my local dealership is the sweet spot. Or is this purely a Canada vs US thing?