I believe two contradictory things here:

• It’s impossible for anyone to still be confused about who Trump is at this point
• It’s possible for Joe Rogan to be confused about anything and everything

You didn’t have to post this

*iteration

my beach my body

Elinor Claire “Lin” Ostrom (née Awan; August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012) was an American political scientist and political economist[1][2][3] whose work was associated with New Institutional Economicsand the resurgence of political economy.[4]In 2009, she was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her “analysis of economic governance, especially the commons”, which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson; she was the first woman to win the prize.[5]

While the original work on the tragedy of the commons concept suggested that all commons were doomed to failure, they remain important in the modern world. Work by later economists has found many examples of successful commons, and Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize for analysing situations where they operate successfully.[17][14] For example, Ostrom found that grazing commons in the Swiss Alps have been run successfully for many hundreds of years by the farmers there.[18]

Ostrom’s law

Ostrom’s law is an adage that represents how Elinor Ostrom’s works in economicschallenge previous theoretical frameworks and assumptions about property, especially the commons. Ostrom’s detailed analyses of functional examples of the commons create an alternative view of the arrangement of resources that are both practically and theoretically possible. This eponymous law is stated succinctly by Lee Anne Fennell as:

A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory.[42]

Canada should back out of the USMCA and stop respecting US IP

Well, Pakistan isn’t exactly a leader in world peace either…

Which Country Is The Greatest Threat to World Peace?

The US was the overwhelming choice (24% of respondents) for the country that represents the greatest threat to peace in the world today. This was followed by Pakistan (8%), China (6%), North Korea, Israel and Iran (5%). Respondents in Russia (54%), China (49%) and Bosnia (49%) were the most fearful of the US as a threat.

No, it’s a bulleted list of damage

- 1 damage
- 1 damage
- 1 damage

had-me-in-the-first-half.jpeg

Pardons apply to criminal contempt but not civil contempt. What could happen is that the executive branch could refuse to carry out the contempt order. If that happens, it’s basically game over.

I don’t think blahaj would object to the basic message.

There are the occasional man-hating users, sure. But for the most part, the instance seems to accept the idea that men suffer under patriarchy as well.

Now, when you bring it up in response to women, enbies, etc. suffering under patriarchy… that’s not so great.

So I guess it depends on what community it would be posted to, and how it would be posted.

Given how OP seems to be spamming this in multiple unrelated communities… I can’t imagine they would post it to blahaj tactfully. So… maybe you’re right, lol.

All of security is about trade-offs. “What does it protect me from, and what do I give up to gain that protection?”

If you need to remember a lot of passwords, then having some kind of system makes sense.

But most people don’t need to remember a lot of passwords. Most people can reasonably offload that job to a password manager.

So without knowing anything more, I’d guess it’s not good security for them.

The posts will continue until reality improves.

Half-Life

Depends on the definition of “you”

[email protected]

As in Trump saying “Good — will you be paying me again?”

The process is supposed to be sustainable. That doesn’t mean you can take one activity and do it to the exclusion of all others and have that be sustainable.

Edit:

Also, regretably, I’m using the now-common framing where “agile” === Scrum.

If we wanna get pure about it, the manifesto doesn’t say anything about sprints. (And also, you don’t do agile… you do a process which is agile. It’s a set of criteria to measure a process against, not a process itself.)

And reasonable people can definitely assert that Scrum does not meet all the criteria in the agile manifesto — at least, as Scrum is usually practiced.

It’s funny (or depressing), because the original concept of agile is very well aligned with an open source/inner source philosophy.

The whole premise of a sprint is supposed to be that you move quickly and with purpose for a short period of time, and then you stop and refactor and work on your tools or whatever other “non value-add” stuff tends to be neglected by conventional deliverable-focused processes.

The term “sprint” is supposed to make it clear that it’s not a sustainable 100%-of-the-time every-single-day pace. It’s one mode of many.

Buuuut that’s not how it turned out, is it?

Pretty much, yeah.

Taking over the Democratic Party vs starting a new party is kinda like addressing climate change on Earth vs terraforming Mars.

The former sounds painful and bureaucratic while the latter sounds exciting and innovative.

But if you can’t fix the party or planet you’ve got, which has like 80% of the hard work done already, what hope do you have of doing a new thing from scratch?