Some people merely have the urge to create -- For those people, it has little to do with coping. They would like a distraction free environment regardless.
I'm certainly one of those people :)
It's very meditative to solely focus on the one thing in front of you.
A lot of that agent activity is combing over what was previously made, forcing constraints upon it so you have a reasonable expectation of what ends up on your desk for review.
For me, strong file structure helps as well. Reviewing a 3,000 line file it just created is abysmal. I wouldn't accept that from human nor machine :) Multiple files in the right places helps reduce cognitive load.
Sometimes I'll also review with the agent interactively. What is the most important file to review first, etc?
I like to stage changes into a "LGTM" pile. Then if I want changes, I'll have the agent "review unstaged changes - I want something different done here."
It is meant to be a loftier take of the world around you. It is prescriptive: A call to action to make the world a different place than it is today, armed with your discipline and knowledge.
In lieu of this, Eric Schmidt walked on stage and gave an advertisement.
They get griefed once in a while but the highway builders have pretty amazing automation these days so it’s not only very boring to grief they will also almost instantly be repaired.
I know 2b2t is old enough to have had many different eras, but when I heard about and checked it out in 2018, the spawn was barren, of course, but I had no problem leaving and surviving out to a pretty far distance to build a little base.
As long as that anything doesn't consist of putting anything bad in chat or a sign such as a cuss word like "shit" or building a build or map art that someone may find offensive.
If you want to do absolutely anything you need to find a different server.
that's because Microsoft said it would blacklist 2b2t (making the client refuse to join it, or the auth server refuse to auth players for it - a punishment normally reserved for pay-to-win servers but the bar has been lowering) if it didn't ban swear words in chat
Considering no other server has to ban swear words (ignoring Bedrock partnered servers), I do not believe that happened. The server administration does not care so they are just trying to censor as much as they can automatically so they don't have to manually spend time looking at the server.
There are other servers who are small enough to continue to have actually anarchy and who are willing to require having alternate domains to bypass the blocks.
"Minecraft Online" painted a target on themselves by choosing that name. They're a walking trademark infringement and a particularly egregious one at that, to the point where they sound like scammers. They got away purely based on goodwill from Mojang.
It's famous for being toxic and unmoderated. You can do anything... want to be racist, cool, doxxing people, cool, targeted harassment, you bet your ass.
>However WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stressed in a statement it "does not meet the criteria of pandemic emergency" and advised countries against closing their borders.
I suspect this is to mitigate perverse incentives for countries to avoid reporting outbreaks and collaborating with the WHO for fear of tanking their economy
Directly contradicted by the WHO: "...spreads from person to person through direct contact with the blood, secretions, organs, or other bodily fluids of infected individuals or contaminated surfaces" [1].
People always bring this up as if there is some collective responsibility for they themselves having believed an obviously politically motivated narrative. Like personally I'd just take some responsibility, admit I was suckered, and try to do better in the future. But rather with the context of how it's brought up, it's clear they're just still at it buying into new nonsense political narratives. "Can't get fooled again"
You could interpret this kind of statement as a hardline “never trust anything the government says” stance. You could also interpret it as espousing healthy skepticism.
You can’t tell which it is from a one line comment, so it’s not at all clear the person who said this is buying into any particular political narrative.
I'd call it unhealthy skepticism. Someone who is operating at the level where they might have blindly trusted what the WHO says does not need a push that merely makes them more skeptical of the WHO while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators sending narratives their way.
It's healthy to remain sceptical of all information, pointing out a very widely blindly trusted organisation has serious problems which means this trust and faith placed in it is blind is NOT "an enemy of my enemy" situation.
That leads to sectarianism.
The WHO can both simultaneously be responsible for many good things and have very bad leadership doing more harm than good in other areas. But pointing out that dichotomy of the truth is beyond the conversational chattering class I fear.
> while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators
You insist on assuming based on a one-line comment that the person is a gullible sheeple. And maybe they are, but I fail to see how you have established this.
It's the exact same one line comment made by lots of other people advocating a particularly malevolent political movement, so yes this is the reasonable inference (your inflammatory description notwithstanding). If OP intended some nuanced point, they didn't do the work to expound upon it. And while I certainly have sympathy for how intellectual libertarian discussion points get colonized by populist authoritarian movements, the dynamic is what it is.
it's not nuanced to point out a very large statement which at the time was very VERY anti-trumpian and pro ultra-left, lest not forget "hug a tourist", "lets change the popular naming conventions to technical" and, "oh crap too late now human to human is higher than anything we've seen before" which is basically all memory holed now
Institutions, as well as large groups, most certainly have their flaws and failings, and often downright suck in the eyes of those of us who put in the work to self actualize. But unfortunately it seems that most people are hopelessly wed to following some kind leader, so the alternative we get from undermining institutions is that they just crave replacements that merely validate their own feelings. Touchstones that would have been previously considered individualist are now simply supporting mass self-centeredness (eg the anti-mask wackos). If you want to make individualist arguments, then you need to do the work of adding nuance that sets them apart from that!
Well thank you for your service to stupidity. The only measure of worth was actual social distancing which was quickly admonished by the pointless mask arguments as nauseum. No, there is no science good to bad to back up things which are broken by common sense, virii spread in Japan at the same rate as the west after accounting for population densities. (faster without the correction as you'd expect) So let's just move on.
Please, oh please, do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled". The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism which is often what those arguing the point are stupid enough to believe they are arguing against.
If you're going to make an argument for they need lead then yes. And we need both control in the dining water. But we'll never see my version of an idealised advancing civilisation because of "mah feels", "personal experiences" and such drivel.
You may not be used to hearing this but if I was to be grading you you'd get a pass for a coherent sentence but a fail for correctness and coherency, in short. You are wrong.
> The only measure of worth was actual social distancing
It's been conclusively shown that N95+ masks block the virus particles. IIRC the coherent anti-masking arguments were of the form that they were not necessary for general population, not that they did not work. If you want to point me to some research that shows masks are ineffective in eg healthcare settings, go right ahead.
In my experience, anti-masking behavior was also strongly associated with people who wouldn't social distance, because we're really talking about proxies for "this is real and I am trying to take prudent measures".
> do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled"
So then how do you explain the current embrace of open fascism? The many disingenuous appeals to lofty ideals of individual freedom, that when followed culiminate in support for autocratic authoritarianism? I sure fucking wish people would choose the individualist enlightened freedom path when presented, but they always seems to go sideways.
> The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism
NGOs and government public health authorities issuing non-binding advice is not totalitarian, and calling it so in the context of the current political climate in the US is preposterous. Only about half of US states had any form of lockdown, yet from the amount it was talked about we can see where the bulk of the histrionics lay.
No. Not at all. The simulations were based on old data with the artificial cut off. The particles were and are much much smaller. Please don't recite rhetoric and do some reading.
And frankly I'm saddened that you're arguing for an educated by tryany and trying to make things political which are simply fact based
I'm certainly one of those people :)
It's very meditative to solely focus on the one thing in front of you.
reply