My work offered a compressed work week for a few years where employees could work the same number of hours over 9 days every fortnight, meaning they could take every second Friday off still working the same number of hours. Employees based in NA didn't get that benefit, instead of trying to get that implemented over there NA employees were practically celebrating when the company recently scrapped it everywhere else instead.

My experience of American work culture is very much toxic crab-in-a-bucket mentality, pull everyone else down instead of trying to make work life the littlest bit more bearable, ironically directly contradicting the company's slogan. The amount of brown-nosing sycophants on all-teams calls is pretty insane too.

So yes, I very much believe this is something American media would say.

There's plenty of examples of software doing this right and displaying each language in the selector in that language, it's hard to say why they've localised it here. Most likely they just didn't consider how the user interacts with that element and localised it the same way they translate everything else, but that could be down to anyone from the developer habitually running everything through localisation to company policy where they couldn't get an exception for that element.

You'd have to ask support for whatever software you're using for more detail, chances are you won't get anything useful back but if you're lucky they might fix it.

If the coins are 100% gold or copper then you're in one of two scenarios: the value of the coin is the scrap metal value, in which case swapping between gold and copper makes little difference; or, the mint buys your scrap gold and converts it in-house, pocketing the difference. A mint has no reason to convert your gold to significantly higher value coins for you, that only loses them their economic and political power in the form of currency control.

The only way it would work is if you specifically build a world where everyone else is incredibly stupid just to make yourself seem smart.

People are always praising that fanfic for some reason so I tried reading it a while back. If it's the one I'm thinking of then hard disagree, the protagonist is a self-insert Mary Sue clearly written by a kid who thinks they're the smartest person alive. One part that still sticks in my mind years later is their fundamental misunderstanding of how fiat currency works, it was some ridiculous get-rich-quick scheme like melting down wizard currency into pure gold to sell to non-wizard community then using that money to buy silver which they'd trade up to magic society gold coins. It was some years ago so I may be misremembering the details, but there should be a ton of issues that immediately jump out to you there.

I trudged through and got as far as the first meeting with Malfoy where the author realized they were being too friendly with each other, but since Malfoy is supposed to be a bad guy they decided he should randomly blurt out something about how he wants to rape some girl.

Maybe it's just because I don't have the context of other bad fanfics, but that's a solid 0/10 from me.

The question reads like an XY problem, they describe DB functions for data structures so unless there's some specific reason they can't use a DB that's the right answer. A "spreadsheet for data structures" describes a relational database.

But they need rectangular structure. How do they work on tree structures, like OP has asked?

Relationships. You don't dump all your data in a single table. Take for instance the following sample JSON:

  "users": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "name": "Alice",
      "email": "alice@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "The Witcher 3",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.8
              },
              {
                "name": "PS4",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["RPG", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Minecraft",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2011,
                "rating": 9.2
              },
              {
                "name": "Xbox One",
                "release_year": 2014,
                "rating": 9.0
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sandbox", "Survival"]
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "name": "Bob",
      "email": "bob@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "Fortnite",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.6
              },
              {
                "name": "PS5",
                "release_year": 2020,
                "rating": 8.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Battle Royale", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Rocket League",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 8.8
              },
              {
                "name": "Switch",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.9
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sports", "Action"]
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

You'd structure that in SQL tables something like this:

The dbo.favorites table handles the many-to-many relationship between users and games; users can have as many favourite games as they want, and multiple users can have the same favourite game. The dbo.platforms handles one-to-many relationships; each record in this table represents a single release, but each game can have multiple releases on different platforms.

Usually no, unless I've left a reply disagreeing then someone else comes along and downvotes them, makes me look like an ass who downvotes anyone I disagree with. I also check my own comments to see if people agree with me but I'll keep the comment up either way, if I do change my mind I'd rather leave a new comment or add stuff in an edit.

It's not too difficult to bot votes on lemmy so they're even more pointless than they are on reddit.

The "grammatically correct" way is always whatever way is already in widespread use. Also, I'd say this is a noun adjunct, so not all that uncommon.

Aphantasia is a spectrum, but even when you can visualise a full realistic scene it should be easy for most people to tell the difference between that and seeing something physically. When you can't tell the difference that's a hallucination.

It's only total aphantasia if you can't visualise an image in your mind at all. I believe then you'd get more a concept of an apple than an image or other depiction of an apple but that's only my understanding from hearing other people talking about it.

This specific case isn't really to do with the evolution of language, more just ineffective linguistic prescriptivism. Some guy 200 years ago decided they didn't like how "less" had been used for the past millennium so they made up a guideline for what the preferred (like what you just said) then people decided to treat that as an actual rule. Obviously it's still common to use "less" that way even after a couple of centuries of people trying to enforce that rule, it's a good demonstration of how prescriptivism is a waste of time.

Strangely enough, in my experience many prescriptivists who rely on etymological arguments are fine with language changing for this one rule. Makes me think they never really did care about historic usage of a word.

Alice: So, how do you identify?
Bob: Normal.

What's the odds Bob's a bigot? Someone asked how to describe their sexuality, "normal" is not a useful answer.

Fuck that, that's implying any other orientation is abnormal. People should have the right words to describe their sexuality.

Thanks for downvote, but your response is still somewhere between unhelpful and a dog whistle.

I disagree with that framing, someone not buying your shit is not the same as you losing money. Inkscape saved millions for graphic designers, which is very different. Adobe was not entitled to that money, you can't lose something that was never yours.

The British monarchy primarily "provides" money by owning land and other assets which would otherwise be government-owned. They also "earn" a shitload of money just for existing and still dump significant expenses onto taxpayers.

The important factor isn't whether someone can be addicted (otherwise you're banning nearly everything), it's the harm that addiction causes. As a general rule of thumb physical dependencies like alcohol are more harmful than habitual addictions, but that obviously isn't the whole story.

Caffeine addiction is the same category as alcohol and tobacco but causes so little harm that I don't think anyone is seriously opposed it. On the other end of that scale is something like meth or other hard drugs, generally understood as destructive and has few serious supporters encouraging use. Breaking these addictions is almost always hard and physically taxing, in some cases can even be lethal.

Marijuana addiction is in the same category as most things that make you feel good or form habits so it's harder to nail down a proper scale, but the lower end is probably something like video games; a debilitating addiction is possible but uncommon and most people would oppose a blanket ban on the basis of "can be addictive". Gambling is on the other end can definitely ruin lives. I'd say that's a little worse than coffee. Breaking these addictions is more like breaking a bad habit, it can feel hard for the addict but generally isn't going to kill them.

You are under no obligation to keep a product you don't like for any reason, companies aren't entitled to your money by default. You might have had a point if we were talking about some super rare item only one or two companies manufacture but this is about a HDD dock, you'll probably find 5 different models with identical functionality just by checking your local electronics store.

I have never heard anyone claim returning something is "extreme" before. It's so mild it should be one of the first options you consider, especially when you ordered online and didn't get the chance to see the item before purchase. You shouldn't get saddled with shit just because there's some "feature" you hate which you weren't aware of when you bought it. For that reason where I am you'd have a legal right to return almost any order within 14 days of receipt no questions asked, or longer if there's a defect.

From your description it sounds like they haven't complied with a legally binding ombudsman decision. The ombudsman is the last stop before legal action, you should get in touch with a real solicitor rather than ask for anonymous advice online.

An N322A form might be what you need to enforce the decision, but if I were you I'd check with Citizens Advice or a lawyer first.

The "once in a generation" argument was always bullshit but over time it's just got more and more ridiculous. If we had an independence referendum today people who were five years old in the last one could now vote. How could any sane person consider that the same generation?

I tried looking that up but all I could find was this private video and a lot of responses calling them out for spouting total bullshit, I'm guessing it was a misinformation video they were forced to remove after a lot of pushback. Doesn't sound like someone worth listening to.

Absolutely, I just meant to point out that there's far more blatant examples so no need to couch your language in phrases like "some have said". Goblins have been antisemitic caricatures in fantasy for a long time so it's easy for a bad writer to just regurgitate existing tropes, meaning a racist writer can use that as a shield, but it's much harder to justify naming your black character after slave imagery.