Betting odds measure the vibes of people who gamble. Not exactly reliable

I was like, why specify “one or more” and then make it optional? Isn’t that just .*?

I have a suggestion for the “men” who are mad that their wives now have agency

As much of a controversial term as it can be, this is why we need Feminism, with a capital F. Go wives! Do what you know you must! Do not let your husbands control you! Never go back!

Yes! Well said.

Literally required to do it by law of sanctions

I’d like to sign up to receive your troll report pls :)

oblivious neoliberals 🤝 resigned anarchists 🤝 enraged leftists 🤝 disgusted centrists 🤝 anti-Trump republicans

“It’s what we have to do”™

DRY is usually helpful if you don’t use it in situations where you have like 2 semi-different things. If they’re actually the same and you have 3 or more then the level of abstraction is worth it almost always.

I don’t really have much more to say on this subject but I appreciate your responses, they’re well thought out and helpful for thinking about these subjects.

Also that yeah

Unfortunately I’m still on windows, so [User]/Documents/Projects/*

Ah, didn’t know +? was lazy, thanks

Code that’s easy to extend generally encourages creating related code that’s easy to delete. These are very similar directives.

What’s funny is, the system failed the test! If it worked, he would be in jail.

What the actual fuck

It’s updated for me. Might be a federation issue on their end.

The capture group must be the same each time it repeats, so the number of characters stays the same. So X groups of Y characters = string of length X*Y. X and Y can be anything so any string length that can be made by multiplying two numbers-- which is every non-prime string length-- is matched. 0 and 1 are handled specially at the start.

Is there a reason to use (..+?) instead of (.+) ?

You definitely have some good ideas about an alternative system, but you also have some nonsense in that first paragraph.

Thank you, and yeah some of that post was a little shaky, I didn’t proofread it much.

The idea of someone deserving punishment is inherently dehumanizing. It’s not possible to punish someone unless they are beneath you. Thinking another human is lesser than you defines them as less than human.

I disagree that it’s not possible to punish someone unless they are beneath you. Firstly, a group could punish someone who is equal to any given member of the group. But mostly, I think your definition of dehumanization might be too strict, although your argument is consistent if I take that definition to be true. To consider someone punishable, they do generally need to be beneath you in some sort of power structure, but that doesn’t make them less than human. Is a child less human than a parent? A boss more human than an employee? A follower less human than a leader? You can easily advocate for universal human rights and general equality while creating punishments for those who violate the peace or cross moral lines. Someone who is punished isn’t given that punishment because they’re less than human, they’re given that punishment because they did something wrong-- a rule that applies to every human equally. To allow them to violate the social order and harm others without consequences would in fact put them higher on a hierarchy than everyone else, and by your logic dehumanize everyone else!

There are no “evil people” there are only evil actions. Every single person has the capacity for evil. We’re going to be stuck where we’re at until we collectively recognize that truth.

Everyone has the capacity for both good and evil, but some people consistently choose one over the other. I believe someone who consistently chooses to be evil can be usefully categorized as an “evil person”, even though they can change. And we should give them as much of an opportunity to change as we can. But if that doesn’t work, are we to allow them to continue to do evil in hopes that they’ll turn good eventually?

Hard lines of behavior? That’s just what laws are, like we currently have.

I meant on a more personal level, we should have less tolerance for behavior that’s unfair, deceptive, malicious, etc. Social enforcement is powerful but people are reluctant to do it (and understandably so).

Seriously though, “hard lines of behavior” is an extremely authoritarian phrase.

I try not to concern myself with what categories my personal beliefs fall into because I think that limits the way in which you can think about things. I wouldn’t categorize myself as an authoritarian but I’m sure I have some views that go towards that territory. I don’t consider a passing similarity to concepts used for bad purposes to be damning, though. If it’s bad in the context of my usage, it will be apparent without the need to compare it to existing systems of thought. That sounds a bit conceited but mostly it’s that I want to avoid arguing about beliefs that I don’t hold that are seen as related to the ones that I do hold in some way.