At first glance, sure. But then, strength in conviction and leadership mean nothing if you’re strongly leading your people and your country into ruin.

Sounds like Google doesn’t create per-account cookies and uses one cookie set per browser instance, so you’re either logged in or you’re logged out, one account at a time.

Browser containers or profiles might be the answer to what you need.

I’ve been using different Firefox profiles to run accounts in parallel for well over a decade at this point. Containers might be able to do the same thing, but on account of the aforementioned, I’ve stuck with the old way of doing things.

Also not what you’re looking for, but it may scratch some of the itch: déjà vu

That is, (you think) you’re inducing a sense of déjà vu and disgust within Sebastian.

Additional to other answers, back in the early days of alphabetic writing, some writings alternated left to right then back again right to left on alternating lines. This is called “boustrophedon”, literally “(as the) ox walk(s)” because it’s the same way oxen are used to plough fields.

There’s documented evidence of both early Latin and Greek being written this way. What’s less clear is which direction they chose to start those writings.

The problem with that is that you have to learn to read both directions. They often wrote the letters backwards when text went the other way, which came with its own set of problems. You probably don’t have a mirror. You basically have to learn to write almost twice as many symbols. Some letters are their own reflection and you can’t always tell which way something was written. etc. etc.

Eventually someone influential will have chosen the direction for presumably a good reason (to them) and everyone else eventually followed suit.

Some people genuinely do not understand the concept of GUI windows and how they work. They do not generate a full mental model of the desktop and the windows on it and only see the whole screen as one bewildering interface. They focus on what they do know in order to get by.

This may be especially true of people who learned their IT with small screens or low resolutions where running an application full screen (or as the only active application!) is required to get anything done.

Your colleague saw you click on part of the interface they were ignoring because they didn’t understand it and magic happened.

Do you consider yourself a virus?

Well, certain people do consider me to have some undesirable traits like ideas about getting our species off the planet, and if I didn’t exist, I’d generate considerably less CO₂.

Uncomfortable though it may be, the latter applies to everyone I’ve ever known, cared about or who has cared about me.

And it is inherent. The singular purpose of certain genes is to make more of the same gene, and they’ve gotten very good at it. Humans and viruses are both emergent phenomena.

But then, I suppose if we don’t leave, we don’t spread the disease elsewhere… so OK. You’re right. We should never ever leave…

And the only way to save the biosphere is to do something we’re completely incapable of. We’re screwed. Neat!

I don’t think that because the rich b-stards think that. I think that because I believe our species - regardless of race - has outgrown its environment. If I got this idea from somewhere else, it wasn’t from Musk or Bezos or others like them. It might even have come from watching Star Trek or reading sci-fi.

We’re like a virus or a cancer that will ultimately end up killing the host. Earth’s biosphere in this instance.

The correct course of action is to destroy the infection or cut it out.

And if you want what’s being cut out to survive afterwards, yes, you have a lot of work ahead of you before you do so to ensure its continued existence once it’s somewhere else.

We need to consider what it would take to get every single one of us off this planet and living somewhere else.

I’m actually of the opinion that humanity needs to get off this rock as soon as possible. The uncomfortable truth is that fewer humans would in fact help the environment, and none would be even better.

The problem is with how to implement that without it turning into murder.

Hence, we leave.

Good call. They unprinced Andrew, they can unlord Mandy.

Sure you can, but why fabricate evidence against someone when you can trick them into making real evidence?

The hard job of fabrication begins if and only if that fails.

I wouldn’t turn up to most job interviews with rainbow hair, oversize sunglasses and clown shoes. And if I dressed sensibly, I probably wouldn’t bring my teddy bear as a mascot if I expected to be taken seriously.

Emojis are in that sort of territory.

Know your audience. And if you don’t, or are trying to present to as wide an audience as possible, default to the safety of plain prose.

but three hundred twenty-seven otherwise

Depends on the dialect. That “and” is a requirement in British English.

Nah. He has other tricks. Sending in armed goons and cheating at golf are a couple of them.

I suppose you could go to the root of all these for the real lone trick: being a self-serving piece of [redacted]

Is it any more maintainable with four levels of abstraction?

I was going to suggest gluing a thin, flat strip of metal around the edges, but yeah, anything stiff would serve the same purpose.

Seems to me that would make the true ethical choice to be to buy it from the second-hand shop and then burn it, robbing anyone else any chance of advertising that fashion.

Not a doctor, but that sounds like an OCD-type thing to me. I suspect most people do not feel the need to touch a control if it is already set as they want. Also, this might be in violation of rule 3 as a result.

Consider consulting with a doctor or psychologist or (cheaper) trying to get yourself out of this habit before it diversifies into a family of them (assuming it hasn’t already).

And Israel only need bring up that Australia did something similar with their own brown people a while back, so why can’t they do it right now?

“That was then, this is now.” is not the greatest of arguments.

Which is why I said we should leave that can at the back of the cupboard.

Tricky prospect. If they admit Australia on that criterion, they’d have no good reason to not admit Israel if they asked to join, and that’s a can of worms I don’t think Europe would want to open. Best leave that can at the back of the cupboard.

Now, if we could find some other criterion, I don’t see why not. Sticking it to Britain by accepting all of the Commonwealth except Britain could work as an argument, and might even be popular on the continent.

It would have to be couched in cleverer language, of course, for the sake of plausible deniability.

Be aware that a lot of distros will be switching from X11 to Wayland at some point in the not-too-distant future and these ancient tools will not work there.

People have tried to write equivalents (ydotool is one I’m aware of), but Wayland has intentionally been written to make doing such things difficult, for “security” reasons.

I will be grumpy until I can make my scripts work again, but that’s for future me to deal with.