grumpycodemonkey.bsky.social
Professional code monkey, amateur songwriter, cynic, snarkist, husband, feeder and walker of dogs, servant of cats, procrastinator, unfinisher of projects.
44 posts
25 followers
12 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Too flat-chested.
comment in response to
post
The most infuriating part of the debate was that not voting was somehow going to send a message to ... somebody.
No.
Not voting is a tacit endorsement of the winner. The only message it sends is "the 18% who bothered to show up are right."
comment in response to
post
Just like you're not a real parent if you only have one kid, you're not a real guitarist if you only have one guitar.
comment in response to
post
Apparently gear and flaps were down before the compressor stall, meaning they were able to raise them afterwards, meaning the hydraulics couldn't have been knocked completely offline.
It smells like a complete breakdown of procedure in the cockpit, but without CVR/FDR that's just speculation.
comment in response to
post
May we all live as well, if not as long. May we all follow his example, however imperfectly.
The message and lesson is simple -- you save humanity by saving individual humans at every opportunity.
comment in response to
post
Thank you for the correction.
comment in response to
post
The FD merely required broadcasters to devote airtime to subjects of public interest and present contrasting views, not equal time, on those subjects.
The Equal Time Rule is a separate regulation that applies only to competing political candidates. It is still in existence today.
comment in response to
post
It is not a fair question. The Fairness Doctrine did not apply to news. It required holders of broadcast licenses to provide some airtime for diverse viewpoints on matters of public importance.
Limbaugh was talent, not a license holder. It never applied to him.
comment in response to
post
Apologies; I meant with respect to the Fairness Doctrine specifically.
Enthusiastic deficit spending, embracing the religious right, "government *is* the problem", open war on the poor, and his own cult of personality are far more pernicious and lasting legacies.
comment in response to
post
The current iteration of the Bradley is good, but the movie wasn't wrong about the problems during its development, the culture that caused those problems, its insane-at-the-time cost ("with a B?!"), or the weaknesses in the original production run.
comment in response to
post
You want to know what *really* set the four horsemen loose? The Telecommunications Act of '96, signed by WJC. That's what allowed Murdoch and Clear Channel and Sinclair to buy up all media outlets.
That did much more lasting damage than anything Reagan did.
comment in response to
post
No. The requirement for so many hours of civic programming was the cause, not the FD.
And it could *not* have been updated for cable and internet, because those are not publicly owned and leased like the broadcast spectrum; SCOTUS would have shot it down on 1A grounds.
comment in response to
post
I get some tiny satisfaction picturing him and Nixon spinning in their graves over how thoroughly we've been pantsed by China and Russia.
comment in response to
post
I *loathed* Reagan and lay a lot of our present dysfunction at his feet, but killing the FD wasn't a factor.
comment in response to
post
No "if" about it.
And it won't matter who's health secretary. Or President. A substantial chunk of the population will refuse to take the most basic precautions out of a combination of ignorance, ODD, and cult conditioning, and it'll be 2020 all over again.
Stock up on masks now, guys.
comment in response to
post
No. FD never applied to cable, or print.
News orgs have served up hot steaming propaganda and "fake news" since forever. Hearst was the Murdoch of the late 19th/early 20th century. For a brief period broadcasters and news orgs put civic duty ahead of profits; that was an anomaly.
comment in response to
post
The Fairness Doctrine did dick-all to stop "fake news". It only required broadcasters give equal time to opposing viewpoints, all of which could be equally dishonest, and it only applied to OTA broadcasts, not print or cable.
News orgs used to have a sense of civic duty; that's what changed.
comment in response to
post
Not all, but enough.
comment in response to
post
I used to say the universe was big enough that I could agree with even Pat Buchanan on at least a couple of things - sky is blue, water is wet, bacon is yummy, etc. And I'm sure ol' Pat would be on the Elon hate train too.
comment in response to
post
Sometimes you just *have* to touch the stove; what does Mommy know about stoves, anyway?
comment in response to
post
I call myself a little-a atheist, and other atheists annoy me more than just about anyone else.
In my experience the most virulent anti-religious assholes are bourgeois kids from the suburbs who have *not* been victimized by any religious organization; they're just *bored*.
comment in response to
post
Paradigms come and go, but legacy code is *forever*.
I dream of permanently shitcanning about 80% of the code in my current codebase and rewriting the rest from the keel up.
comment in response to
post
SLOC is the *least* useful metric for evaluating software, so naturally that's the thing he cares about the most. Jesus.
comment in response to
post
Is that genuine? Not that I'd be shocked, but ... my Ain't Right™️ meter is pinging.
I tend to be most suspicious of posts that confirm my worst impressions.
comment in response to
post
Just one?
Bubba, I have *dozens*. **DOZENS**.
Among them is the clear superiority of bourbon over tea.
comment in response to
post
Government isn't supposed to be efficient, it's supposed to be *accountable.*
The goal of DOGE is not to improve efficiency but to eliminate accountability.
Why is left as an exercise for the reader.
comment in response to
post
They want your data. Why should they let Sony or Microsoft or Roku or whatever have it? How are they gonna track your viewing or buying habits unless they're on your network?
Probably the only way they can turn a profit anymore.
comment in response to
post
Hitting the Christmas absinthe early, are we?
comment in response to
post
Tolerance is overrated.
comment in response to
post
Been saying this ever since its first run.
comment in response to
post
Good way to funnel money to Russia, though.
Yeah, that's tinfoil-hatty, but at the same time it's not.
comment in response to
post
*Quality* bait.
comment in response to
post
The Fairness Doctrine never required anyone to tell the truth; it only required broadcasters to offer equal time for opposing views (which could be equally dishonest). It only applied to OTA broadcasts because the spectrum is publicly owned.
They can lie for the same reason any of us can.
comment in response to
post
So to speak.
comment in response to
post
At my first job in 1990, my boss remarked that he could remember a time when there wasn't enough magnetic media in the *world* to store a terabyte.
comment in response to
post
It comes from the same place as picking at a scab, or poking your tongue in the hole where a tooth used to be, or chowing down on a McRib.
comment in response to
post
I get that you're just "havin' a little fun" (as a MAGAt I used to work with would say), but son, there are much better ways to waste time.
comment in response to
post
So, yes, it's *better* for three women to die in childbirth than to allow one to terminate a pregnancy.
It's *better* to allow a woman to die of sepsis than remove a stillborn fetus or terminate an ectopic pregnancy.
That's worth it in the name of "protecting life".
comment in response to
post
Better for three women to die in childbirth than to allow one to terminate a pregnancy, yes?
comment in response to
post
More pregnancies are going to be lost to complications. More mothers are going to die in childbirth. More reproductive health issues like cervical or ovarian cancer will be under-diagnosed and under-treated. Real women and children are going to die because of this bullshit.
comment in response to
post
Hubble works in (mostly) optical wavelengths, just takes long exposures. But some instruments (such as JWST) are designed to study wavelengths outside the visible spectrum, so any published images use all false color (assigning arbitrary colors to different brightness levels). /2x
comment in response to
post
Depends on the instrument. Our eyes aren't sensitive to color below a certain brightness, so what we see through a backyard 'scope looks pretty dull. But if you stick a camera on it and take a long-duration exposure, you'll see a whole bunch of colors; it's there, we just can't perceive it. /1
comment in response to
post
while ( fork() );
comment in response to
post
"Fatal syntax error."
No, that's it, that's all we're telling you. No line number, no hint as to what the error is.
Good luck.