I use sublime.txt everyday. The main purpose is reading, editing, searching a “scratch.txt” file I have been prepending to for the last 11 years. Sublime loads, saves, and searches it better than any other text editor. I have found it’s a helpful way to save random lists, notes, links, and common chunks of code.
I have a similar use case, although I am not a power user.
I use it to open often giant .csv and .txt very very fast.
I use it to quickly edit SQL because the select-lines command (ctrl+alt+up/down) makes batch edits of indented code a breeze.
I use it to sometimes format and arrange weirdly formatted C#.
I use it often for its lightning fast search and replace function.
It has grown on me over NP++ which is still a very very nice text editor.
IMHO, minimum sentencing requirements and a rigid adherence to stare decisis is harmful.[1]
On the other hand, it is helpful to have a reasonable expectation for how things are going to turn out.[2]
I don't have the time to compare and contrast "casuistry" with legal realism, but my hunch is it would end up with the same result: judges figure out how they want to rule and then pick and choose what law to use to get there.
[1] PEP 8 (Quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson), "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds".
[2] PEP 20, "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
Parking my comment here to be part of the dense club.
Why would you even need forever growth? Is it good enough that old companies die and new companies replace the old? In that process, there's always growth to find and invest in?
There's always winners and losers. We hope the market provides us with ever improving options, which could be a win for everyone. Some may lose by taking down zombies, but the market overall improves. </overly simplified and probably wrong answer>
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
I've voted in every election I've been eligible for, and that strategy hasn't exactly worked, so far. ("Voting" as a generic answer for "how do we effect change in government" is trite, oversimplistic, and doesn't actually answer the question.)
I don't think I've ever seen a referendum on military spending, much less specific policy, on any ballot.
It's pretty clear to me that they don't think that. They are illustrating that "go out and vote if you want to make things better" is useless advice because the majority of voters believe that radical change is unnecessary or impossible.
>They are illustrating that "go out and vote if you want to make things better" is useless advice
That strikes me as naive and juvenile. It's not useless advice, it just need to be properly contextualized. You're a sharing a nation with hundreds of millions of people, so you cannot expect that your fellow citizens all want the same thing you want. Yes voting is a method of change, but the effect of a singular vote is very small, especially for influencing federal policies.
At the local community or neighborhood level, a single dedicated person can actually make a big difference, but that also requires work, because changing minds takes time and effort.
This is also why federalism should be embraced by everyone. Limit the federal government as much as you can and leave the consequential decisions to states and communities. But local issues aren't sexy enough for many.
>They are illustrating that "go out and vote if you want to make things better" is useless advice because the majority of voters believe that radical change is unnecessary or impossible.
And yet that's exactly what the "disenfranchised, angry white rural male" bloc accomplished by voting for Trump, while their opponents mostly sat on their hands because they couldn't have Bernie. There are numerous examples in American politics where popular sentiment has led to radical shifts in policy.
It just happens that in recent history (probably since 9/11), the American public seems to want those shifts to move the country further and further right. Those people are getting what they voted for.
I don't know why I'm even writing this, I'm just really tired of seeing the political class being untouchable (and that's not exclusive to the US).
I remember a guy in my country doing all of what you wrote, getting as far as organizing a political party, which was promptly absorbed into one of the three biggest parties, never to be heard from again.
This isn't democracy. It's der'mocracy (my favorite Russian portmanteau, means shitocracy).
I don't know what this one guy stood for, what he did right, or what he did wrong. He might have been completely incompetent, or maybe his ideas were so far out of the mainstream that he really stood no chance no matter how competent he was.
How many allies did he manage to get? How many people did he manage to reach? How long was he active for?
Also, we need to keep in mind that just because your party doesn't get elected that doesn't mean you've failed. Sometime showing the public that there's an alternative or moving the conversation to include your issue can effect change in the mainstream, which can be a victory in itself, even if your party does not achieve power.
But even if this one guy failed, that does not mean that becoming politically active in a democracy is useless for everyone and that everyone is doomed to fail. The point is to get lots of people involved. You can't do it all by yourself (or it wouldn't be a democracy).
That said, I agree that there are many faults in American democracy, and in other democracies all over the world. That doesn't mean we have to give up on democracy. They could be reformed to be more democratic, through democratic means. But people have to become more educated and more politically active. Simply casting a vote once every 4 years and digging our heads in the sand the rest of the time is not nearly enough.
> people have to become more educated and more politically active
That's the key point, there has to be a critical mass of people that want to be more educated and politically active. But there's not enough of them. And I don't know how to get more people involved.
The current system is better than anything else we've had, but it looks like people won't be interested in it until it's corrupted beyond repair, at which point they will resort to violence and rapid, hopefully not violent but definitely half-arsed, change. History repeating itself.
Unfortunately, I think that the best answer might be "vote for people who support your beliefs, even if/though they are guaranteed not to win, until one of the two major parties begins to adopt those people's positions in an attempt to attract your votes"
Unsatisfying answer and I'm not sure it's guaranteed or even likely to produce results in your lifetime but until we get rid of FPTP voting it's the only real answer
If you're willing to let a value slide, its not a value. Values should be things you're willing to stick to even when it hurts you. I think that misunderstanding/lie is the problem with most "values" list.
But that's the point - where are you willing to be hurt? That's a more interesting question than what you are ostensibly willing to stick to, and much more revealing about the organization's culture. Everybody wants all the nice things, but what really reveals your values is when you want two nice things that are contradictory - which do you choose?
That's why Facebook's "Move fast and break things" is so powerful (and so revealing) as a value statement, as it showed that Facebook was willing to break any number of things to move fast. Google's "Don't be evil", as words, is utterly useless, because nobody considers themselves evil. Google shutting down their consumer-facing site so that they could honor the terms of their AOL deal, however, spoke huge volumes, as did them pulling out of China in 2010 regardless of the cost to their market. Similarly, them going back into China regardless of privacy and human rights violations also speaks volumes.
When they were young (2002) Google signed a contract with AOL to become the default search provider there. When they flipped the switch, AOL gave them so much traffic that they lacked server capacity to service all the requests. Rather than renege on the contract, they shut down google.com and redirected all hardware resources toward servicing the AOL traffic until they could build more servers and make any necessary software optimizations.
The story was told to me as a Noogler (in 2009) as an example of Googliness, and also as a significant milestone in the company's development. The backdrop of this was the dot-com bust: web companies were failing left and right, and nobody knew who would be left standing. By shutting off their own consumer brand to honor the terms of the contract, Google made a name for themselves as someone who would move hell or high water for their partners, which built critical trust in what was then a promising but unproven startup.
It is a means of stating the value you assign to a concept or ideal.
The implicit statement of a list of values is that these are things that are valued highly. But of course, some things are valued more highly than others, and other things not on the list are also valued, at different levels.
Sometimes positive traits can be assigned a very low value, in a company statement such as this. For example, Netflix famously does not value a highly stable workforce. It's not that they don't want stability, or think it's stupid, it's that they value other things much more highly.
Or, in other words, the concept of value is not binary.
> If you're willing to let a value slide, its not a value.
I suspect this is so strict that if we poked at it it wouldn't allow for the existence of values. Simply, it's probably nearly impossible to make a useful list of even two values that can't possibly come into conflict—if you cannot compromise either, period, what then? So now we can only have one value. But I doubt even a list of one would fare much better under scrutiny and a few reasonable thought experiments & socratic questioning.
Maybe I am misunderstanding empathy, but the following paragraph sounds more like sympathy: "But when it comes to difficult conversations, I’ve found that empathy has a side-effect. I can get so focused on how the conversation might affect the other person’s feelings that I lose sight of why the conversation is needed in the first place."
In the above circumstance, I thought empathizing with the person would be understanding they (may) benefit from the information you're providing. Sympathizing with them would be reacting to their feelings, which seems to be the approach here.
Am I wrong?
An analogy could be made to a person who recently had a friend die. Sympathizing would be reacting to their sadness and feeling bad for them. Empathizing would be understanding how they're feeling and taking steps to support them (e.g. spending quality time with them).
It’s also my go to for wrangling weird txt.