A girl I was seeing stole my painkillers out of my bathroom while I was recovering from surgery. She was a pharmacy tech at the local pharmacy... which was owned by my best friend.
This article mentions and skims over what I think is the far more important:
First, programmer productivity varies tremendously across the profession, but it may not vary so much within a given company. Someone who is 10x more productive than his colleagues is likely to leave, either to work with other very talented programmers or to start his own business.
I appreciate that his focus is that extreme productivity may not be obvious, but I feel like that's probably 10% of the reason here. A firm typically has headcount and budget for developers, and they're unlikely to deviate from it too much. If you were 10x better you'd leave the company for one with a larger budget for developers. The dominant effect isn't that employers have a hard time measuring productivity in coders (although I'm sure that's true), it's more that they commit to a given compensation range and are pretty inflexible to changing in the upward direction.
I know programmers who make 50k. And 75k, 100k, 200k, and 2M/year. The range on development jobs is huge for this reason, but you're unlikely to deviate far from where you started within any one specific company.
I like the way MIT does it. All classes are quoted in approximately the estimated number of hours per week they should take you. So you'll see something like "12 (4-0-8)" which means 4 hours in lecture, 0 in lab, 8 on out-of-class assignments.
There is no law that can make him delete the nudes. If they're in his possession he can legally hold onto them as much as he likes, pretty much.
There are, however, two sets of laws that can protect you if he spreads them:
I mentioned copyright first because it is so much more powerful. If you took the photos yourself you are almost without a doubt the legal copyright holder of those photos. Since you're in an LDR I'm guessing that almost all the nudes he has are ones you took of yourself. It does not matter if you sent a copy of the photos to him, or to anyone else, or for what reason you took the photos, they're yours. Unless you've explicitly signed away the copyright to those photos to someone else or explicitly entered them into the public domain, you own the copyright. If he posts those anywhere without your consent, or retransmits them without your consent, you potentially have a claim for damages. Copyright law is much, much, stronger than revenge porn law and if you ever find out he's done anything with the photos you took of yourself, you can lawyer up and pretty much destroy him. It's worth noting that even though you own the copyright, if you sent him a copy, this does not explicitly give you the right to make him delete that material, but it does severely impact how he's allowed to redistribute it.
Yes, Florida has a new revenge porn law but it's relatively "weak" so I mention it second. The law makes it illegal to transmit nudes of someone without their consent if they are accompanied by identifying information. So just posting your nudes anonymously on some random Internet board would not be illegal, but if he posts them alongside enough information to identify you (e.g. "this is Jane Doe in West Palm Beach" or "my name is John Doe in Clearwater and this is my ex girlfriend"), then you have a case. But even in that situation, it's only a misdemeanor with a small fine and 1 year in jail, and not a felony (although you can sue for civil damages). The law is also relatively new and not well-tested.
Cutting toxic people out of your life is overwhelmingly the right response. But you're 18 and living with your parents. She can't force you to interact with her but you need to recognize that cutting her off will build a tension that will inevitably come back at you just because you're so close to anything. And it could make things worse for your dad and little sister. Honestly, your dad is an adult and he should deal with this crap but your sister is innocent in this and if I were you I would try to be diplomatic enough for her sake.
It's a huge failing on your dad's part enabling your alcoholic mom.
What I would do:
Thanks a lot. My parents have done a lot for me, but my dad has exactly that 'holier than thou' attitude. He's told me it's none of my business what goes on with my mother. His strategy when I press him is to deflect the problem on to me and my faults. He's used the word 'enabling' to refer to what he's doing to me in regards to moving out. I need to come at him with a coherent argument that covers all his rebuttals.
I'm confused as hell.
No. "coming at him" with rebuttals is not going to help you. The fact is, your father is a textbook enabler and if he hasn't recognized that fact in the ~18+ years he's been with your mom, he's not going to suddenly realize it just because his teenage son makes The Perfect Argument. Seriously, he's known his wife for longer than you've been alive and he's still refusing to adult up and help her with her problems. He's a failure as a father and a husband, and all of his bullshit is probably just the mental gymnastics he is doing so he can avoid confronting that fact.
On top of that, you have a weird dynamic where you're 18 and still living at home and you're not quite an adult but not quite a child either. He's not going to take you seriously because you're still an irresponsible and dependent kid to him, no matter how true or false that is in reality.
You need to focus on three big goals right now, the ones I mentioned above: surviving (generate as little friction as possible), supporting your sister (she is younger and even less able to deal with this than you), and escaping (get the eff out as fast as you can). After you escape, you can work on healing (getting therapy).
If you try to go back to your mom or dad with why this is a problem you'll make zero progress because your mom is an addict and your dad is an overgrown child who would rather blame his teenage children for the family problems than do literally anything to actually fix it.
If you live in a state or country that has resources for children of alcoholics or a school system with adults you can trust, now is the time to go to them and ask them for resources. Hell, if you live in the United States you can literaly just go down to the local police station or courthouse and ask to speak to a clerk about resources for people in your situation. They may not be able to help directly but there is a 99% chance they are familiar with organizations in your local community (non-profits, social services, therapists, churches, etc.) that can specifically help you and your sister navigate until you escape.
What the hell planet is your boyfriend from.
You were raised by your grandparents. This is pretty common. You were raised by your grandparents because your parents were really young when they had you. This is also not uncommon.
The only uncommon thing here is that your dad pretended to be your brother during that time period, presumably to spare you the awkwardness of having a parent who was still a child himself. It's not ideal, but your entire family-- grandparents and father-- rallied together to make sure you had the best possible life despite the circumstances. This is the exact opposite of betrayal.
I am honestly and 100% sincerely very happy that everything worked out for you and that you were able to find success and meaning and happiness and that you get to enjoy a hopefully easy and rewarding retirement.
However, of all the people who made similarly terrible choices, 99.9% will end up in a much much worse place. This story is like listening to the young professional athletes or musicians who gave up school to focus on their talent and made it big. They all say the same thing: "follow your dreams and never let anyone stop you." And the press eats it up, because no one is going around interviewing the other 1000 people who made the exact same decisions but are now struggling to make ends meet.
Your post is great in that it shows that people who have already made those mistakes can find meaning and happiness and success, but everyone reading this should be aware of the dramatic survivorship bias at play here. For every OP, the other 1000 people who made the same terrible mistakes are too busy trying to piece their lives together to post about it on reddit.
I mean, you say survivorship bias is horseshit but then you say 999 will give up, succumb to failure and heartache, not want it bad enough, realize they wanted something different, etc. You're literally describing various modes of failure that contribute to survivorship bias :P
Again, super happy it worked for you :) And I hope that other people who end up in a similar position find similar and even greater success!
Fuck it, let's try DoTA-style balancing. Make everyone OP as shit, then nobody is.
They should do OP shit like this to every hero released in 2014-2016, and keep it like that for a solid month, then revert all back to normal. How cool an event would that be, they could call it Classics Uprising or something.
This can never happen. Icefrog balances dota by exaggerating hero strengths and weaknesses, or narrowing or widening their niche. It results in heroes that are incredibly unique in play, feel, and appropriateness for any given game. That works fine in Dota2 because every game has a draft where at a minimum you see what your allies have picked. It lets you build cohesive teams but it has the downside that the draft becomes an incredibly important part of the whole game experience. It's easy to pick the wrong heroes and "lose in draft" before you ever spawn in the fountain.
Consider now that ~80+% of HotS games are quickmatch and there is no draft. There is no team building. What you get is just what you get. And you realize that of course every hero needs some of everything in their kit because the vast majority of players will never assemble a draft and so having specialized or niche heroes would mean more games are won and lost not even by draft but by RNG of a team-assembling algorithm in matchmaking.
Always knew she was quirky. Didn't know much about her home life. I didn't think the world of her or anything but I generally thought she was a pleasant, happy, person.
She came to me crying because she found out her husband cheated on her while she was pregnant. She said it was bad because when she cheated on him the year before, she did it with someone who was on the same level of attractiveness as he was. Apparently he found someone really hot to cheat with while she was pregnant. So it wasn't "fair."
She wanted my help cheating on him to get revenge, as if it were her way of getting "ahead" again. Like her self-worth in the relationship heavily depended on her being able to cheat again.
You guys do realize that the more you do this, the more you invalidate the concept of a "draft" in the first place, yes?
I know I'm 5 days late to this party but I'm posting for posterity: aren't like 80+% of matches already quickmatch, e.g. no-draft anyway?
I mean, I think it makes for a pretty crappy experience, but I can understand if most of your players have no clue who they're teaming up with then it incentivizes designers to build heroes that can fit into any role.
Well yes, you're not wrong. But designing the game around Quick Match should be shameful. I get the feeling that for them, it is not.
I come from Dota and in principle, I agree with you, but you could also argue that designing the game around 80+% of your playerbase is actually smart from a business/revenue perspective. Like why bother balancing shit to make us tryhard plebs happy when most of their money comes from people who QM the same hero over and over? Blizzard is ultimately a business, after all. :P
I’m a painter, I appreciate the value of the tradition of having executive portraits done. That said, $85k is obscene and to send it to a foreign painter when some of the best painters in America are being trained in New Jersey (Florence Academy of Art in Jersey City) is doubly obscene.
The Presidential portrait probably didn’t cost $85k and it was done by an American. Christie gives new definition to the idea of tone deafness.
Edit: also the painter is no-one special. Average talent at best.
Second Edit: Christ he’s a caricature of bad taste. What a joke.
I honestly don't understand how there is no oversight on this. Like, did Christie just get to name his price? There's no one in the budget office going "Uhh... no. Here's your cost limit"? And I agree, the fact that he chose an Australian artist is ridiculous when a New Jerseyan could have done it for a fraction of the price.
That's a good point. Could he literally have asked anyone to do this in any way and have the taxpayers foot the bill?
"Mine will be the first portrait ever that is contained in the frequency spectrogram of a song. It will be performed by Taylor Swift and produced by Daft Punk. Once the audio is completed, the spectrogram will be extracted and 3D-printed onto carbon nanotubes and framed in a metal sphere which will be kept suspended in air by a super-cooled super-conducting magnet, on which is engraved, 'PEDICABO EGO VOS ET IRRUMABO, CIVES'"
Obviously I don't know this specific situation but having been a part of college admissions in some capacity for some time, I gotta say I've seen kids beat themselves up over much smaller things. 93 to 91 is that barrier between a 3.8 and a 3.6 and unfortunately high school students are wound super tight about GPAs for admissions.
Can someone dumb down Hannity's response? He seems to be saying "I never utilized Cohen as a lawyer for anything" but also "he was technically my lawyer so my talking to him (about nothing) is legally protected." Is that actually the gist of it?
Yeah he wants to have it both ways. "I basically never used him, but anything I did use is protected and you can't see it!"
Yeah I'm not a legal expert but I'm guessing the hullabaloo over this is because this definitely doesn't feel kosher, even to people experienced with law.
Like, my friend is a lawyer. Is every conversation I have ever had with her covered by attorney-client privilege because she's given me ten minutes of estate advice for free in the past?
I mean the same people who argue that parenthood is a full-time job also argue it shouldn't impact their search for an actual full-time job. That's not how that works.
I want to add though that there is a large extent to which women are punished for this that men are not, and it reflects a terrible social expectation that women bare the full burden of "the full-time job" of parenthood. I think in light of that it's reasonable for women to be pissed that they're getting shafted when men with children aren't, presumably even if they have stay-at-home husbands who take care of their children.
Man I'm so glad that the children excuse would never fly at my office. When you want time off no one questions why or for what, it's just assumed that, barring some once-ever things like weddings and funerals, everyone's reasons for being out are equally important.
Every minute you spend with her is a minute you're not spending with someone who actually loves and respects you and wouldn't cheat on you.
Can you even respect someone who would do that, let alone do it to you? When someone cheats, they are waving a big red flag in your face that says "this is who I really am. I might make excuses for it but at the end of the day this is just the kind of person I am."
She chose not to tell you the whole truth because she was afraid of you leaving her. This is literally her saying, "I care way more about what I want than about what you deserve." When someone goes so far out of their way to show you how shitty a human being they really are, believe them.
No, never. If you're applying for something where how you look is material to the job you do (e.g. modeling job), then you should have a separate portfolio with professional photos/headshots. If you are not applying to such a job, many firms have blanket automatically-reject policies because they don't even want to allow the possibility of a discrimination claim. In either case, it should not be a part of your resume.
Simple business move. If they announce it I don't see why it's a dick move. If their market was willing to pay the higher price for the original size you'd think they'd have polled to find out and made that decision. or they would have seen a drop in sales because of this practice and reverted to the older design
I mean it's a dick move because it's clearly designed to fool people who were unaware of the announcement. If they wanted to just eliminate 30% of the mass of each bar they could have just made them all 30% shorter, but then it would be immediately obvious to customers that they are paying more for less.
Whether a number is rational or not or other properties like primality is totally independent of what base its representation is.
The failure to distinguish between a number and its representation in a particular base often leads to the following nonsense from laymen:
1) How can 0.99999.... = 1 ?
2) Pi is infinite cuz it has infinite string of digits
I understand primality and even/odd and factors and such being independent of representation but I'm struggling with rationality, even though I believe you. Can you or someone reading this help me understand a bit more? I was taught that the simple and complete definition of a rational number is a number that can be expressed as the ratio of two integers. I think we agree on that.
I understand you can build integers out of relationships between pairs of natural numbers. But what does it mean to be a natural number? Is this more philosophy than math? More axiomatic than anything else?
By extension, what does it mean for a number to be "rational" beyond its usefulness in that context? I totally understand why it's important that 13 (base 10) is prime and so it must be prime in every other representation. Likewise, I understand why it's important that relationships between numbers need to be preserved so that 26 x 26 = 676 (base 10) necessitates that 1A x 1A = 2A4 (base 16), but I'm struggling to figure out what it is about the rational-ness of a number that needs to be preserved across representations.
expressed as the ratio of two integers.
Ok do you accept that something being an integer is independent of its base representation??
Because if you do , then "expressible as a ratio of two integers" being independent of base immediately and obviously follows.
Ok do you accept that something being an integer is independent of its base representation??
I suppose it's this bit that confuses me. Integers are built from natural numbers. But the definition of a natural number seems to be closely tied to how you can express/represent it. As another redditor put it in this thread:
it’s anything that you can write as “0”, “1”, or “1+1+1+...+1” with a finite number of 1s
But this is fundamentally tied to expressability and representation. That is, is there any meaning to an alternative construction of natural numbers that doesn't depend on representation in this way? And the answer seems to be no, it's axiomatic, which I'm more than fine accepting and then the rest of it follows I guess.
Would be great to have a community college called Standford and have a lot of people assume this.
There are actually a couple of universities across America, the UK, and Asia that have the name Stamford College or Stamford University or something similar (with an 'm' instead of an 'n'). :P
By way of explanation for readers - this is an inside joke among ex-Mormons.
The youngest of Joseph Smith's
plural wives [statutory rape victims] was a girl named Helen Kimball. Kimball's age would have been 14 years, 7 or 8 months. Instead of stating that she was fourteen years old, the LDS church spin apologists disingenuously worded it this way:
The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday. Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by today’s standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their mid-teens. source from lds.org
The other things the spin obfuscates is that plural marriage was not legal; this marriage was not legal or appropriate, and that even in the 1840s the average age of first marriage was 22 years old (source 1850 census), not mid tees. And fourteen is early teens, not mid teens.
Worth noting that, from the same source, his first and only legal wife didn't even know about many of his other marriages.