• 2 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: November 19th, 2023

help-circle










  • Heroic is pretty good too. Supports a lot fewer stores than Playnite (only Epic, GOG, and Amazon at the moment), but it doesn’t require any of the original launcher to be installed in order to download and play any games (with a few exceptions, such the the Star Wars games on Epic which still require the original launcher due to some fuckery).

    Works on Windows, Linux, and Mac, and on the latter two, will even help you set up and configure Wine automatically in order to run your Windows games.




  • Think about it this way: by making their lives easier, you make life easier for yourself, too. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to put a proper .gitattributes file in your repo, but in return, you’ll nip any potential future issues from Windows users who are trying to contribute accidentally or unknowingly checking in files with the wrong line endings.

    Inb4 “I don’t care about contributions from Windows users anyways”: a lot of apps are multiplatform these days (usually Electron). It’s unreasonable to expect people to do all their coding in Linux and only use Windows for testing, especially when all the tooling already exists on Windows. VS Code will handle a repo with LF line endings just fine as long as you told git not to convert the line endings when checking out.


  • Of course I have a right to tell her that, whether or not she actually does it, or whether I have the right to violently enforce my opinion on her is an entirely different matter. But we were just arguing hypotheticals in this thread anyways.

    FWIW I’m not convinced that banning abortion is the solution, but neither that making it easier and safer to access solves any problems, because neither do anything to address the root cause of why women feel like they need to have any abortions at all (excluding those necessary for medical reasons of course).

    But sure, I’m clearly the petulant child here that’s out of my depth, because an intelligent person would have no problem seeing such nuances instead of resorting to politically popular catch phrases.

    And it’s funny, isn’t it, because women tell men all the time what they ought to do with their bodies (go to work, make money, provide for the family, share the housework, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, the list goes on), yet as a man, I’m supposedly not allowed to even have an opinion what what a woman should do with hers? I’m sorry, that just sounds like blatant sexism, but I’m sure that as long as it’s in favor of women, you’re perfectly happy accepting that.








  • Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.

    Well that’s the thing, “historical precedent” means that this has actually demonstrably happened before, in which case there should be data on it. That’s why I asked for proof. Which I understand you’re most likely not going to be able to provide, since there obviously can’t be any reliable data on the amount of clandestine abortions that happened before it was legalized.

    First of all, with the “death or injury” part of this, I don’t see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births.

    I mean, I’m not a woman, but if I were, and I was given the choice between having an illegal procedure that had a good chance of injury or death (and no possible recourse), and carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, I think I would choose the latter, because it seems a lot safer, no matter how inconvenient.

    This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah

    Well, in the absence of any hard data, I find that idea more convincing than the opposite, but again, I’ll admit that I’m not a woman. But unless you are, you’re likely no more of an expert on this than I am. And even if you are AND have gone through all this, you’d just be a single data point of anecdotal evidence, which would not be enough to convince me.

    Good thing I wasn’t claiming that then. I’m saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.

    You realize that for statistical purposes, “zero” and “negligible” are absolutely identical, right? It’s called a null hypothesis, look it up.