⛅ w chance of bears
@teejeh
- 5 Followers
- 11 Following
- 42 Posts
@mcc Considering that a majority government declined to simply legislate the ruling party's preferred variant after promising "the last election under FPTP", FPTP can *lose* under FPTP rules and still be inflicted upon us because even ignorable fragmentation kills electoral reform.
@silverwizard I mean, in a whole bunch of cases I would agree that "track" is more accurate than "song". Most of them are best introduced with the phrase "if I must get really pedantic", though, and my condolences if you've managed to encounter people who didn't realize that that if-statement is false.
@silverwizard Eh, the film/movie example is a gatekeeping/snobbery issue but for "track" I think you're mostly weighing etymology too heavily.
If I want a word that's non-specific as to whether a recording is a song or instrumental, "track" is a word in existing usage that works. That it came into usage because of a literal description of an older technology's implementation is at this point trivia.
@efhastings @cstross The obvious rejoinder to that joke would surely be that you *would* call 1 of the kittens Muffins. Perfectly reasonable name for a cat; they just can't all have the same name.
@silverwizard Walkalas, what do your Ohm-eyes see?
@heydon In most of these the crossing is even at a lighted intersection but the designer is too laser focused on killing pedestrians to consider the implications of the car being unable to recognize that it is approaching a red light in time to stop.
In this case, why has a non-intersection crossing been placed immediately after a blind curve? What signage intended to prevent this situation has the car ignored?
@cstross my (Canadian) preference is to choose a caribou herd and declare our head of state to be whoever that herd's leader is at any given time
@silverwizard People's obsession with innovation is putting the cart before the horse. It's a (potential!) path towards an objective; treating innovation as an intrinsic objective itself is inane.
Sure, innovation may be required when established means can't achieve a goal.
Sure, when someone makes something we didn't know we wanted, their innovation can be retroactively impressive.
But just demanding innovation? "Why won't you change I dunno what to achieve I dunno what?!"
@silverwizard I'm looking at this as a web application returning a response code. HTTP is a protocol; some of the participants of that protocol will be extremely content aware, others less so. The very notion that holding coffee violates a teapot's nature is a philosophical conceit that would be odd for a low awareness system to express in the first place.
On the other hand, I suppose that attempting to french press in a teapot would be my idea of a 500-series teapot error.
@silverwizard A teapot is mechanically a vessel that implements a catch-all "add liquid" or "pour liquid" more-or-less transparently to the actual identity of the liquid (barring extreme properties). When trying to put coffee in a teapot the method is implemented and the data would be valid, except that the teapot czar intervenes with an externally imposed rule which adjudicates that the data is actually invalid because reasons. 403 Forbidden.