This is an argument for a repair function that transforms a broken document into a well-formed one without loss but keeps the spec small, simple and consistent. It's not an argument for baking malformations into a complex messy spec.
You can get bluetooth keyboards on aliexpress for under £2.
If dealing with that type of budget then scavenging is probably the better route especially as online payments may also be out of reach.
In general, as a frugal person, buying "converter" type hardware is rarely a win because mass produced things are so much cheaper than more trivial but niche things.
However, converter type things are often unused clutter someone would happily give away. Just yesterday I came across some ps2 to usb converters. I can't imagine ever needing one again...but imagine the horror of not having one if you did! I probably didn't need to keep two though...
"The Summer of Love" literally refers to one summer in 1967 not the whole of 60's counter-culture. Even Woodstock was in '69.
In terms of the various cultural strands then of course they lasted longer with many roots in 50's beatnick culture (bohemianism, poetry, LSD, Buddhism) to today where bands that played Monterey '67 and Woodstock are still touring and a "definitely not a hippy" in San Francisco might live in a polycule, micro-dose psychedelics while using a meditation app before writing a blog about effective altruism.
Most of geopolitics is geography and Israel has greatly benefitted as a unique bridgehead in hostile territory for a changing roster of great-powers and states against another foe e.g.
- Early Soviet support to undermine British Imperialism
- Balfour Declaration from Britain vs. Ottomans
- Nuclear tech from France vs. Nasser and anti-colonialism
- Military/Nuclear from Apartheid South Africa vs. shared pariah status
- Hegemonic power from the US vs. every unaligned country including Cold War, OPEC, Arab Nationalism, Islamism
The more recent metastasising of support into a political-religous-racial belief-system is even more troubling than the apocalyptic machinations of great powers because pure ideology departs from reason itself and is untethered to any care for the consequences.
Barely though, moving to the states at age 4, but I guess he came back a decade ago. Not sure it warrants national pride unless his parents raised him on a strict diet of tea, scones and the BBC. I hope he turns up at YC having gained his birthright, a nice Dorset burr, "alreet moi luvlees, wart ideals be goin on ere?"
I had assumed moving to the UK was a Madonna-esque escape from getting pitched every 5 minutes while trying to do family stuff in SV.
It's pretty much the same. Click the speaker icon the menubar, bluetooth is one of the options, third click to choose a connection.
There are plenty of excellent extensions if you want something different. I use dash-to-panel to combine the system tray in my dock and not have a pointless menu bar.
> zero windows
Are you not calling the MacOS sound-panel a window? It's the same type of panel you use in Gnome!
I use both everyday and it's MacOS that's buggy, inconsistent and hobbled:
- my speaker doesn't appear in the MacOS sound panel but does appear in the bluetooth section of settings so I have to go there to connect and it works as a speaker. MacOS is literally worse than Gnome at this specific task!
- I also can't use my Mac as a bluetooth speaker but I can use Linux as one. Pretty lame.
> Are you not calling the MacOS sound-panel a window?
When I click on the bluetooth icon in the top bar of MacOS it pops out a little list, and each bluetooth option has a toggle next to it where I can click to toggle.
In my version of Gnome, I click at the top bar to open a menu, then click Bluetooth On (or the name of the currently connected device). That pops out a sub-menu, in which I click Bluetooth Settings. That opens a window that lists the paired Bluetooth devices. I can click on one, which opens another window over the top, where I can click a toggle to connect it. I stare at it waiting for it to connect (it's slightly less reliable at this than the Mac[0], so it's worth watching it) and then I click again to close that window, and finally click again to close the window underneath. Actually 7 clicks!
[0] It could be the Mac is no better at this, but the UI interruption is basically zero to check and re-click, so it at least feels better, and I can do other stuff between checking.
Recent vanilla gnome has the same type of pop-up as MacOS but it does it does have one more click to expand possible connections if changing connection not just toggling.
You could use no clicks and truly no windows with "bluetoothctl connect ..." :)
From documentaries I've seen of Christian monks, there is no talk of personal benefits and emotions like a self-help book, instead it's spiritual motivations about being compelled to follow a path of devotion in service to their faith.
I get the impression that it's a hard life as such orders are dwindling and they report the deprivation of things they did since joining that we might find mundane like "going to buy music" (you can tell they joined pre '80s).
I recall reading the rules of a Buddhist monastery and it was basically a compendium of all the bad things monks have done, written down to make it ambiguous it's off-limits. It did not give the suggestion of fulfilled people. It had a lengthy chapter of all the things you can't put your penis in: people, children, animals, dead things, clay vessels, fabric dolls, trees, holes in the wall, holes in the ground etc. Feels like some desperate rules-lawyering had happened over the years.
No "cups" in old British recipes I've made but there will be measures you have to look up like a "gill".
Old family recipes would just say things like "add flour" and that amount was taught face-to-face and hands-on where you added enough till it looked "right" because onions and eggs etc. were not a uniform size.
This reminds me of a boxed item I bought ages ago where the instructions were basically: cook to desired doneness, season as desired.
Also reminds me of a coworker in a restaurant in Palo Alto who, when I asked him the recipe for a dressing I needed to make, told me "ginger juice, lemon, and just make it good". It turns out there were a few other ingredients.
And yeah, depending on how far back you're going or what sources you're using, there will be a lot of vaguely defined quantities. Glen of Glen and Friends on Youtube regularly cooks vintage recipes and gets into how things evolved over time. Most of his old cookbooks are either Canadian or American but from time to time he cooks from UK cookbooks.
I'm sure there will be examples and my childhood memories won't be great but that link isn't a good example of British recipes.
Most of the instances of "cups" come from the "Edwardian recipes" which is a collection of international recipes including American. It includes in the preface a Table of Measures which is what you do for Brits who see "cup" and ask "what the fuck is that?"!
British recipes today largely use metric units. Pre-metric recipes absolutely did use cups (although this persisted in Canada and the US more than the UK). As Glen points out none of these British cups were standardized.
> With support of the Privy council the King absolutely could remove a malicious but democratic government.
The power of the Privy Council lies in it's executive committee, known as the "The Cabinet" that thing chaired by the Prime Minister we call the democratic government. The rest of the privy council membership is mostly a bauble for past cabinet ministers with some royal flunkies and bishops and the like. It's mostly vestigial, like knightly orders, but with weird exceptions like it includes the supreme court for overseas territories.
This isn't to say such things can't happen but it would not be through a recognised legitimate procedure "with teeth" but as a constitutional crisis where precedence, tradition and law has gone out of the window and whatever side wins is through primitive power/confidence dynamics. There might be rulings of lawfulness in one direction or another but as a postfacto figleaf downstream of victory rather than as a real judgement.
Sure but it's far from the exercise of an accepted power the OP refers to.
In a constitutional crisis, titles of the elected and inherited ultimately become a matter of opinion... but opinion is the path to victory up to the point it descends to military force. Any form of legitimacy becomes currency.
Back in the day we had constitutional crises that deposed the "rightful" monarch despite somewhat believing in the divine right of kings, the magic oils of coronation and weird blood theories around patrilinial descent. These days they have none of that magic and they are just some weirdos that appear in the papers now and again but still, in a moment of crisis, that whiff of history is a poker chip.
And the "those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black" which has always stuck in my mind because of the iconic phrasing.
Frankly I find creating an analogue between the death of MLK and Kirk in bad taste only magnified by scrubbing race from an MLK tribute.
Kirk would have celebrated MLK's death as he did the Pelosi hammer attack. Kirk called MLK "awful" and "not a good person" and the Civil Rights Movement "a huge mistake.".
It is fascinating to see how many people are projecting their own best beliefs onto Kirk, while ignoring all his worst ones. It's a reflection of how they see themselves, not of how he was as a man.
Given his comments on the Pelosi attack, it's clear that he didn't believe that people should be safe from violence for their political beliefs. Given his comments on trans people[1], it's clear that he didn't believe that they should be safe from violence for the crime of... Being trans.
He would fail to meet the standards of civility set for this thread, or for this forum.
Politics is a barrier that protects us from political violence. The worst practitioners of it know this, and act to encourage escalation that will obliterate that barrier. So far, they've been rewarded by wealth and power for their efforts.
---
[1] Charlie Kirk has called for "men to handle" trans people "the way they did in the 50s and 60s."
Is this how someone just harmlessly opening up a civil dialogue behaves?
I had never heard of this guy and thanks to the Streisand effect I learned that he was a piece of shit.
And now het gets canonised like MLK?!
Tells you a lot about right wing America.
If you are concluding that he was a piece of shit based on what people have claimed here I would encourage you to see some of his videos for yourself. Here is an example of his interaction with a transgender male student - https://m.youtube.com/shorts/FhzqKQzueKU
there is a time and place to try to heal the damage you believe that he did to society -- but you're clearly celebrating the death of the man in a thread about his assassination.
You seem to be nonplussed about his suffering, you're criticizing the way a dead man expressed his religious beliefs to the audience, and are implying that his beliefs on gun control somehow balanced his death.
Doesn't that help fuel the narratives about his political opposition that he tried to drive while living?
>Not everyone is some crazed extremist.
...maybe so, but the death of this dude sure did pull some out of thin air.
There's nothing in the parent post that celebrates the assassination. It expresses no empathy for him, but lack of empathy is not a celebration.
It does outline the various ways in which Kirk worked to make the world a worse place, but an accounting of it is not a celebration of a public killing.
"Religious beliefs" is not a weapon or a shield that you can just raise to deflect all criticism of a man's actions. It rings especially hollow for one whose behavior was so highly un-Christ-like.
I see nothing "celebrating" anything in that comment. Just some facts about someone who's ideologies they found reprehensible - as most should by the sounds of it.
> but you're clearly celebrating the death of the man in a thread about his assassination.
I'm not celebrating anything. I'm pointing out irony. You call for gun violence, thinking you're untouchable (because of your skin color and political ties), but you're not.
>you're criticizing the way a dead man expressed his religious beliefs to the audience
Hang on here. Let's unpack this. This is actually pretty humorous.
Let's take the story of Jesus of Nazareth. A poor, brown skinned Jewish guy from Israel born out of wedlock who worked as a carpenter and preached love, compassion, and understanding, whose supposed miracles included healing the sick and disfigured. He worked to feed the needy, clothe the naked, advocated for paying taxes, and treating one's enemies with compassion as if they were their own kin. This person was executed by being nailed to a cross and in his final moments, still asked his followers to forgive his executioners.
We have a rich white dude, raised in a wealthy first world major city suburb using the above gentleman's message to preach hate, racial superiority, phobia, and outright bigotry, all under the guise of "asking tough questions". This dude would go around and "debate" young adults (and children) half his age and use "gotcha" tactics and quick speaking to overwhelm and gish gallop his opposition into giving up. He would then selectively edit the "debates" and post them online to create a strawman for his political allies to punch.
> You call for gun violence, thinking you're untouchable (because of your skin color and political ties)
Neither part of this is true. Being willing to accept that guns kill people is not the same thing as calling for gun violence. And this happened in the aftermath of the Trump assassination attempt.
> A poor, brown skinned Jewish guy from Israel born out of wedlock
It's abundantly clear from any translation that Joseph and Mary were at least engaged. Here's a detailed argument that they were in fact married per the customs of their people: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bi... Regardless, the entire point of the story is that Jesus did not result from extramarital sex.
The quotes that people are using now to try to paint Kirk as "anti-Semitic" are clearly criticisms of current-day Israeli government, not of Judaism as a religion.
> who worked as a carpenter and preached love, compassion, and understanding, whose supposed miracles included healing the sick and disfigured. He worked to feed the needy, clothe the naked, advocated for paying taxes
Yes, and Kirk would have said all of those things are virtuous.
> and treating one's enemies with compassion as if they were their own kin. This person was executed by being nailed to a cross and in his final moments, still asked his followers to forgive his executioners.
Kirk clearly had compassion for the people he disagreed with. This is abundantly clear from any of the video footage. Disapproving of someone else's life choices does not represent a lack of compassion.
Jesus, per the Bible, went through days of ceremony and was well aware that he would be executed as part of a religious persecution. He made this petition because he knew who would kill him and supposed they were misinformed and could still be redeemed. Kirk had no such opportunity (it's still amazing to me that there were people proposing that we should hold off on declaring his "last words" in case it later came out that he somehow said more, after having been shot in the neck). But he did commonly say that he (and TPUSA) would "pray for" people whom he thought misguided.
> We have a rich white dude, raised in a wealthy first world major city suburb... "asking tough questions"
This is the true part of that sentence.
> This dude would go around and "debate" young adults (and children) half his age
The most popular video on Kirk's channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4Nkmfgxzk) directly addresses this, at the beginning. In short: there is obviously and clearly nothing wrong with an adult speaking to adults at a college campus (college age people cannot reasonably be called "children") to espouse his beliefs, encourage and respond to critique etc. This is in fact the purpose of an institute of higher education.
Kirk died age 31; this is much younger than most college professors, younger than most leftists invited to speak on campus, younger than Hasan Piker, and younger than Cenk Ugyur was when he started The Young Turks. People "half his age" do not generally attend college. And this is at the end. When he started — when he co-founded TPUSA — he was one of these "kids", aged 18.
> and use "gotcha" tactics and quick speaking to overwhelm and gish gallop his opposition into giving up.
Watching any of the video footage available makes it abundantly clear that this is not true. The only "gotcha" here is supposing that there's something wrong with Kirk being older than his interlocutors.
Another common part of this narrative (which is mentioned by the student in that video) is that Kirk somehow exploited students being "unprepared". This is entirely their own fault. The footage makes it clear that people (including that student) would come to the mic with very little idea what they wanted to say beyond a general topic, and no idea of how to defend their position even to a neutral party. They all had ample time to prepare. These debate events are announced in advance; and modern technology allows people to access unfathomable amounts of information via the "Internet", even while walking around in a crowd of people outdoors.
> He would then selectively edit the "debates" and post them online to create a strawman for his political allies to punch.
Curiously enough, the most popular video on the channel also directly addresses this. The only selection that went on was choosing which students to showcase. The only editing is to mute words that would potentially cause problems on YouTube. Any of these videos of individual students clearly illustrates that.
> Religious beliefs, eh? Come on.
Proselytism is in fact completely consistent with Christian faith.
Removing the black and white people part makes it more relevant to the current times when it is not just black and white people but non negligible numbers of Hispanics, first peoples, Asians, Arabs and other minorities.
But advocating for the struggles of one group and not another shouldn’t make one bad.
The whole idea of intersectionality makes it hard to build coalitions and turns everything into a problem that’s impossibly complex to solve and difficult to build a coalition around.
It’s the basic reason many leaders who the majority of a country dislike rise to power. Because that majority can’t put their differences aside.
Why does a group have to marginalized to be worthy of advocacy? Charlie only ever expressed his opinion in written and verbal form. That is the bare minimum requirement for free speech. Once you start getting to “oh but this is hate speech” or “ free speech, but XYZ” then there is no free speech. The first amendment becomes meaningless.
He never suppressed or oppressed anyone like what DEI has been doing by openly discriminating against people based on their skin color (and therefore presumed financial status).
He had no version of correct and he didn’t want anyone to suffer. He merely spoke and wrote his opinion and for that “crime” and that alone, someone decided to hate him so much that they decided to silence him forever.
This is sad and shameful (as have been the attacks and assassinations of any elected official or public figure in the past many months).
