I feel like they have poor track records in choosing books. They seem to only ever choose Young Adult Fiction... which isn't bad, but if the ones they tend to choose, they're usually very tropey.
And we have A24 studios. They seem to be doing a pretty good job lately.
You realize you are also being abusive with your terminology and spreading of really poor stereotypes? You've also been condescending. You also tried to say explicitly something was only about you while trying to use that to describe literally other people? You also then continued to say your definition is yours alone but then tried to use it as a way to convey meaning to a general audience?
Abusive language isn't necessarily poor communication. There is nothing ironic there. It doesn't fit the definition of the word at all.
You've been both offensive and poor at communicating though.
If I need to say it, yes, I am, and you're a shitty person for even asking.
I'm done. And you're terrible and should be ashamed.
This has been brought up before (not here, just in general). The short answer is they heavily customized the analytics so it's not as 'bad' out of the box. You can read more about it below.
You can probably ask them directly if you'd want more of an answer. They don't seem to be trying to hide anything.
Edit: also, as far as I know, Firefox actively should be blocking Google Analytics, unless they changed it (which is possible). About four years ago, Firefox started blocking Google Analytics by default.
Fuck that. No one should have to share their anything even remotely shared to their mental health for some sort of odd gatekeeping purposes.
I gave my opinion. You are a terrible communicator and using a condition in a way that is offensive and then trying to force people to put themselves when they may not want to. So fuck that even more. That's shameful behavior. If you want to be offensive and communicate poorly, so be it. That's my opinion. And so be it. If you can justify forcing people to do things and if you can justify using derogatory statements to describe other people, which you literally did, that's on you. We're done here.
You literally just defeated your own argument. You just made the claim its your own personal definition and therefore would need to be described every single time you use it otherwise you would have a failure of communication.
Autism is different for everyone and that's why it's terrible to use it to describe the details of something.
And you aren't describing your own experience. You are describing a government system. If you are admitting it's extremely defined and only works in your head and not whoever you're talking to, you will have a failure to communicate.
Edit: actually, that folks disagreed with you enough to comment is more a sign of that failure than any explanation I can provide. And you still provided it as a way to describe other autistics despite claiming otherwise.
This is a very poor understanding of autism. You've taken such a small sliver that this comparison is going to not only offend a lot of people but also confuse a lot of people. The given properties you're invoking are such a small subset of autism and not even that widespread and hell, it ignores the core reasoning behind some. Brutal honesty is often tied with inability to be empathetic. You're doing yourself a disservice using autism as your "model" here.
Looking into it, I can see some issues with the idea (I don't understand how it wouldn't fall pretty to the tragedy of the commons), plus I definitely don't think Sanders would fit into there. I don't see any of his proclaimed positions fitting into any definition of left-libertarian. Plus I don't see how left-libertarian wouldn't fall prey to the same problem we have with capitalism now, despite being an anti-capitalist notion. It's strong sense of individual ownership of anything other than natural resources seems at odds with a lot of other socialist concepts. I will caveat all of this with saying I have a very limited understanding of left-libertarianism, but just reading any given definition just seems to give rise to very clear contradictions. I feel like either it is problematic or no one is really sharing good definitions of it.
Libertarian cannot work without socialism essentially. You cannot have a free market where the worker doesn't own the means of production. Power will always pool to select individuals and those who have collected power have shown no remotely reliable track record to serve humanity's best interest over their own. In fact, it's regularly shown the exact opposite. Libertarianism is just an excuse to act against the good of society for your own benefit and fuck anyone you step on along the way. I've never heard a defense of libertarianism that is actually good for society. It's basically just dressing up the belief you can't be forced to do good, so you can't get in trouble if you do bad.
I'm skeptical of any claims when they're only touted by the one selling it. I'll wait to see if it actually gets implemented anywhere and is verified by a third party.
Unfortunately a day off, while I'm not against it, wouldn't make as big a difference as folks would like as the kinds of jobs already keeping people away from the polls would likely still be open.
Because that would be a biased subset. That's not how statistics works. I'm not saying it can't be, just that statistically we don't have evidence of it.
half the voting population of the country. i don't really know a good gauge for how much of the full population wants to vote for him. honestly, the version of conservatism that holds power right now could probably be defeated if everyone voted.
never thought i'd see someone ignore a problem with trump because it involves someone that had worked for the government during the trump administration. if that was your best example, something he may not even had realized was fully going on at the time, than wow. sure, let trump get away with something because you hate trump. the damn logical inconsistency is astounding. you hate him so much (which is fine, i think he's terrible too and should be in jail) that you've wrapped around and are now accidentally and implicitly defending him. its like you had a buffer overflow error.
Folks aren't even able to get out of debt. Considering debt generally has a higher interest rate than savings, folks are even held back from saving. OP even mentioned that straight out. If you're a disaster away from destitution, you aren't investing money. Money years from now isn't worth more than money today when your bills are due today.
Generally it's more about the interaction. If the user views it as interacting with the viewport, it tends to be inverted. If the user views the interaction as interacting with the scroll bar, it's "natural". Scroll wheel is the only odd one out. However it was introduced prior to mousepads supporting gestures. So it basically started as an extension of the scroll bar interaction, but as mousepads introduced the concept of interacting with the viewport, scroll wheels were given the option to respond either way based on user preference.
One of the beliefs is also the education of CPR is taught on male-form mannequins and that's how folks are taught anatomical landmarks. Many people don't actually know how to find the correct location to compress when breasts are present apparently.
I feel like they have poor track records in choosing books. They seem to only ever choose Young Adult Fiction... which isn't bad, but if the ones they tend to choose, they're usually very tropey.
And we have A24 studios. They seem to be doing a pretty good job lately.