The way the most recent season of the show ended it looks like humanity may have been misled about the war, so it may end up fitting that more closely once they're done (I haven't read any of the books, just going on your comment).
I have no idea what happened behind the scenes, but Memory Alpha used to have its own hosting and was migrated to the hosted wikia, I think between 2010 and 2015. The old domain still redirects: https://memory-alpha.org/
I remember backlash against the name change. It seemed like they were trying to usurp the whole concept of a fandom, a sort of evil SEO to trick people into visiting the site.
> Is it really that hard to allow only legal immigration and stop giving incentives to illegal immigrants?
Suggesting they abandon a core part of their platform is a non-starter. At least in the US, the left isn't silent or neutral on illegal immigration, they are enthusiastically pro illegal immigration. One of the biggest reasons centrists have drifted to supporting the right is realizing the left no longer supports their values.
The people on the left who are "enthusiastically pro illegal immigration" are a tiny minority of all leftists. The majority does think that illegal immigrants shouldn't be mistreated deliberately, which conservative media outlets condense into "enthusiastically pro illegal immigration".
Short version is that what you, I, and other responses to you are seeing is backed up by the numbers: AI code generation leads to significant bottlenecks, burnout, increased bugs, insane code churn (rewrites), and decreased feature deployment (presumably due to dealing with the bugs and bottlenecks). And as of when this was done, increased AI did not improve the situation, it generally made it worse.
The code churn stat is what bothers me the most: People keep portraying the whole "quickly rewrite/re-generate code with AI" thing as a feature, but looking at it over time, it actually means you lose your battle-tested code and no longer have a stable foundation to build on top of. That's where I think the major problems will show up as code needs to be maintained - and, seemingly, already has been.
Where I grew up (suburbs in the Midwest in the US) it was common and expected all around that you'd leave your shoes just inside the door and walk around in your socks, at least for family/friends/guests. Can't remember about service workers.
Where I grew up (suburbs in the Midwest in the US) no one took their shoes off, ever, until it was bedtime. I cannot remember a single time taking my shoes of at a friend's house, or when visiting somewhere with my parents, or going off to see family. I guess the only exception would be if the shoes were exceedingly dirty, like you'd just stepped in mud or such.
Similarly in the military. We got un-booted at bedtime, and put them back on when we got up the next morning. Even in the barracks, including the nice ones that were reasonably nice apartment buildings, I never took off my shoes to walk around my room or when visiting someone else's (and vice versa; no one took off their shoes to visit me).
The first time I bumped into that rule was when I met my wife, who'd moved to the area from New York. I was quite confused when she asked me to take my shoes off at the door, and more than a little anxious. Sure hope I'm wearing decent socks and my feet don't stink, lest I be traipsing dirty feet around her apartment. To this day, I'm not convinced that hardsole shoes that haven't walked through wet messes are substantially dirtier than a damp sock that's been inside a shoe all day long.
I grew up in the suburbs in Ohio, the majority of my family and friends took their shoes off at the door.
I can't imagine feet in socks would be dirtier than the bottom of a shoe, but I guess it depends on where you walk, and how nasty you let your feet get. Like if you use a public restroom and then walk on carpets in your home, that's just gross. Maybe you walked in a park where dogs play. Good chance of tracking some dog shit into the house.
> To this day, I'm not convinced that hardsole shoes that haven't walked through wet messes are substantially dirtier than a damp sock that's been inside a shoe all day long.
Absolutely no way. Like, it's not even comparable, sweaty smelly feet are infinitely cleaner than a shoe that stepped outside just once.
Even if we only talk about visible dirtiness (which is probably the least of the uncleanliness), I've hosted dinner parties in my flat where people kept shoes one and others where they didn't, and the difference is very very obvious: disgusting floors after the former and normally-clean-looking floors after the latter
However, protective equipment is taken seriously and then shoes stay on. Here in Sweden, of course ordinarily all shoes are taken off (for 8-9 months of every year they're wet and dirty) but if workers come in to do some work, they keep their shoes on because they're protective equipment. If you're having them come during a particularly dirty time of the year, you may want to cover your floor with newspapers or give them shoe covers.
When I worked in Helsinki, it was quite common to see people do this in the office as well. Some people that were otherwise appropriately dressed (business casual) would be walking around on slippers. Always thought that was slightly funny. Very practical though. I had some rugged hiking boots that I wore in the winter there that definitely would come off when I got to work.
I've been in small offices where having slippers wasn't mandatory, but everyone brought them just because they were more comfortable. Also in one where taking your shoes off or using those medical plastic covers was mandatory (in spite of the work being IT).
Romania. Typing this at the office, wearing slippers :)
Eastern Europe is the same. I've only been in one house one time in the US where it was shoes off. It just felt wrong even though it wasn't carpeted and there were no rugs
The "support your feet" argument came from the belief that everyone is supposed to have a prominent arch and that shoes could force your feet into that shape, but as far as I knew had been thoroughly refuted over the past 15-20 years. Forcing your feet into having an arch when it's not your natural form can actually cause problems further down the line. Soles not being flexible also changes how you use your ankle and IIRC how you balance while walking, possibly contributing to back problems.
Keeping your feet clean and protecting them from surfaces are the primary purposes of shoes. Some people need them for support after having worn shoes too often (my parents are in this situation and have a separate set of "indoor shoes" just for this), or some sort of disability that needs those super-wide-sole shoes, but in general they are not for supporting your feet.
He made the "my heart goes out to you" motion (thump your hand over your heart, then fling it out towards the audience), people took a static image of the last part of it, and left out the context to create outrage bait for clicks.
Someone disagreeing with you on the interpretation of that event does not make him a Nazi. You need to take many steps back from the polarized thinking you are engaging in, because it ultimately harms you to lash out at people in this way.
Yeah, just off the top of my head have to find words that fit the duration and reasonably fit the mouth animation, replace idioms and jokes that don't exist in both languages, and not lose the appropriate tone.
Minimum wage was first established in the US in 1938, so I'm not so sure they're wrong. Almost sounds more like you're confirming what they said, since it's barely been adjusted with inflation.
reply