Malle_Yeno

Oh hey, fellow org user!

I'm in the same boat. I don't do calendaring that much, but agenda is what I use when I'm time blocking tasks.

My main complaint is that I can't get it to sync to my Google calendar. I have tried org-gcal but the gpg encryption never works for me so I just gave up. I would have liked it to have easier viewing on mobile, but that's minor enough that I don't care. Orgzly with notifications on lets me know when its time to do something anyway.

Pretty much yes. The only one I'm not 100% on (besides the scout skin, since that was after I stopped playing) is the engineer prosthetic. I feel like that weapon came out a while after TF2 was made (but I can't check that right now so don't take my word for it).

Furry here and just want to say: isn't this entire discussion super disrespectful to the important job that animal control personnel actually do?

Like, animal control has an important role in protecting communities from animals and helping animals that are injured. They shouldn't have to be dragged into this stupid outrage farming.

They're also useful for separating multiple lists when using a comma would make it look like an item is an extended list.

So let's say I want to express:

"My contacts are:

• Jessica, Cook (as in a job title, not a name)

• James, MD (as in the professional certification, not the name 'MD')

• Doug, ABC (maybe to show that Doug works at ABC)"

If I said:

"My contacts are Jessica, Cook, James, MD, Doug, ABC."

There's no clear indication of what is a list member and what is a new list. But this:

"My contacts are Jessica, Cook; James, MD; Doug, ABC."

is a bit clearer. (There are probably better examples but I'm shooting from the hip here lol)

I live in Saskatchewan, which is as land locked as it gets in Canada. And for some reason, my city has a Red Lobster. I don't think I've heard anyone talk about going to it because who would expect a seafood restaurant all the way out here to be good? I have no clue how they're making enough money to operate.

(Also, nice pfp! 🐾 )

I'm not defending Trump, but don't statements like these run counter to the Goldwater Rule?

I like Dr. K and think the content he puts out is important and useful, but there are a few items with his approach that I don't appreciate. In a few of his earlier videos, he uses an example of a farmer vs. a hunter (or something thereabouts) to explain why certain unproductive thoughts can be reoccurring in people. I find that this has a lot of overlap with evolutionary psychology, which has an evidence problem and is often employed by "mindset grifters" to move product. I'm not saying that Dr. K is one of those grifters, but I'm concerned that his employment of it might "soften up" viewers to that kind of logic. So that when an actual grifter employs it, the person would be more receptive to being scammed.

But even so, I still want to stress that I think there's a lot of good in his content and I think offering as much free content as he does is a public service.

Edit: sorry, i forgot to tie this back to your comment. He often in his earlier videos tied back those evolutionary psychology examples to concepts in Vedic philosophy and meditation. I think that could be dangerous for the reasons above, with the added issue of tying evidence-based science to things that can't be evidenced (like someone having a certain tendency present in Vedic thought). I have the same objections to that as I would astrology. But of course if people find either of those things helpful to their mental health journey, more power to them.

For what it's worth, the reputation of the BrandonM comment on the Dropbox post is pretty overblown compared to what was actually written. The post highlighted some concerns that were legitimate in 2007. And the tone of the comments were supportive of dropbox -- the poster acknowledged the feedback and offered use cases that still would lean towards Dropbox, and BrandonM responded that they made sense and wished them luck.

Here's a primer based on my own understanding. Anyone can feel free to correct if I mess something up and I can edit my post, I'm not a Muslim myself:

• Ramadan is a month on the Islamic calendar (I think the ninth one?).

• one of the pillars of Islam is that during Ramadan, Muslims need to fast from food and drink while the sun is up. Other pillars are things like praying five times a day, going on pilgrimage to Mecca, and donating a portion of your wealth annually. So it's no exaggeration to say that Ramadan is extremely important to Muslims.

• I believe the rationale for Ramadan is that it is an observance of Mohammed's revelation.

• there are exceptions to fasting requirements. Off the top of my head are people who are sick, women on their period, and if it would put yourself at serious risk of harm by fasting.

• Muslims use a lunar calendar (measures months by looking at the phases of the moon). Because the moon phases and procession of the earth around the sun are not in sync, this means the months on the Islamic calendar don't line up with the seasons. So Ramadan can be in the winter or summer on certain years, and therefore sun up/sun down times can change.

Implying that Jewish people at large need to be told not to murder children because of the actions of Israel is actually anti-Semitic. Citing parts of the Torah to slander Jews when the topic is about Israel is anti-Semitic.

There are Jewish activists who oppose Israel (and Israel abuses them for their activism when they live there, or outright bans them from ever visiting Israel if they live elsewhere). And there are Jewish Palestinians too.

That section does not describe how it does not break the Goldwater Rule. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion based on what it reads in the section.

It lists specific instances where the rule and commentary on Trump intersect, as well as citing commentators that disagree with the APA about how the Goldwater Rule is applied with Trump.

The Australian Jewish Association posting a picture like the one in the post kind of implicates Jews at large if such actions aren't widely condemned and taken back...

No it absolutely does not. Pointing at an organization's statement and placing the responsibility of finding and condemning the message on Jewish people is insane. Do you think Jewish people are a hive mind or something?

The Australian Jewish Association is openly a pro-Israel and right wing organization. They say as much on their website. Why are you comfortable pointing at anything the org says and painting it as widely representative of Jewish views?

Unfortunately it's overshadowed by a massive suppression campaign all over the world to hide voices of protest and justify the occupation.

A campaign that you're not helping to oppose by pointing at the AJA and holding Jewish people culpable for its messages, nor by citing the Torah to slander Jewish people as child killers.

If you have a Jewish state by their own admission and put a lot of meaning into their text. Israel. That state says something is Anti-Semetic. Then someone references their own text to show how they believe something to be their religious right and telling someone to stop that is anti-semitic

If I'm reading what you're saying right, then you think the commenter was trying to mock Israel for their actions in Palestine by joking that Israel holds points about Judaism that justify child murder as sacred (thus telling them to stop would be "anti-Semitic" because their view of Judaism privileges child murdering.)

If I'm reading you right, then

1. that reading is incredibly generous to the point of inaccuracy. Because the context for this is the commenter looking at a post by the AJA, finding a piece of the Torah that reads like it supports child murder, then concludin that because this is part of Sacred Jewish Texts that it is anti-Semitic to tell "them" to stop killing children. This isn't helped by the commenter repeatedly asserting that it is somehow encumbant on all Jews to unilaterally denounce any pro-Israel messaging by any organization with "Jewish" in its name. (I can only guess they think Jews have a radar in their heads that goes "blip" whenever a post like this is made. Otherwise, I don't know how that could possibly be a reasonable expectation.)

2. this assumption relies on a reading of Israel as a representative of Judaism, or that either Judaism or Jewish people are accountable to Israel or it's appropriation of religion. I'm not sure whether this assumption walks the line of or directly crosses into dual loyalty territory, but it certainly sees that line.

It would be like some Catholics killed some gay guys who were kissing and the Catholics said the gay guys where being racist and anti-Catholic.

What's interesting about your analogy is that there is a state that proports to represent Catholicism (Vatican City) that you could have used here, but didn't do so by using "some Catholics" instead. After all, it would be crazy to hold all Catholics responsible and hold them to account to rebut the Vaticans claims for these hypothetical killings if "soldiers from Vatican City" did the killings, no matter what rationale the Vatican would have hypothetically given for them.

I wonder if there is a state and group of people that this analysis should also apply to.