I always feel like these induced demand arguments are suggesting that adding more lanes means the same number of people are just choosing to do more driving. Maybe, as you add more lanes you create the infrastructure for a city to grow, and it adds more people which then fill up the new lanes. People aren’t just going out and buying a new car or rolling an existing car out of the driveway that they were previously not using because a new lane is built. These are net new drivers, who would not be in that city if the infrastructure for them hadn’t been built.

Seems like they are mostly trying to pawn off their issues onto unpaid volunteers instead of doing any actual development.

“New Teams” has been so painful for me, but if I understand correctly that is because my work is still on Windows 10. The Windows 11 version works better than the React version?

Danger if you are white and speaking to folks who are not. Lots of history in that word, use carefully.

Crypto and crypto accessories.

Man, I’ve used AirVPN forever. Should I change now?

Underrated comment.

“You wouldn’t download a house.”

Fuck you, I would if I could.

A dictatorship is a system of government where the one person gets to help everyone out by making all the tough and boring governmenty decisions. But it’s also a system where the the one person making the decisons can be a really bad person, and therefore can make really bad decisions. So, yeah, swings and roundabouts.

Corporate wants you to find the difference…

A terminal addiction

This is the answer.

This lemming reads.

You son of a bitch, I’m in.

Or just “Oh well…” preceded or followed by a sigh, a shrug, or both.

Kree lo tak!

Thank you for that explanation. Based on the downvotes to my question there are some “objectivist” scrollers out there that don’t like how stupid their philosophy actually sounds when you point out it is the equivalent of a toddler’s “nuh-uh!” logic.

Legit question. If I was an objectivist, would I need to agree with you that am awful as you discovered this knowledge with your mind and it is a fact determined by nature you have perceived? Or would I just disagree and say that my objectivist view trumps yours because I discovered it with my clearly right-beliving mind and correct interpretation of nature’s facts?