I'm pretty mad about the blatant manipulation of index funds by spacex, and I looked into how to avoid the IPO. If you're like me, the amount of unrealized gains from index funds over the past few years mean the tax penalty of exiting these funds is just too big (the majority of my money is not in tax advantage accounts like a 401k). If not for the tax reasons, I would probably go with a direct index. Vanguard and Fidelity both have em. But honestly even at inflated float ratios this stock makes a very small part of the overall index. What I hate is forcibly being made party to such blatant manipulation, but like any other "concentrated benefits, diffuse costs" situation, it's probably too low a real cost for most people to deal with.
Media isn’t made for men anymore. I don’t believe you can make media that appeals to both men and women at the same time. It creates bland, tasteless media with no gravitas because you have to appeal to the widest possible base so all edginess and grit that give the movie memorable moments are completely removed.
I actually find that view of men inspiring. Depending on what “variety” you mean, an openness to that is depressing, infuriating even. It belies a rot, grinding down the best characteristics.
I can only match your level of specificity. What do you mean? You gestured vaguely in the direction of something. What do you consider "made for men" that isn't represented now?
Unapologetically promiscuous leading men, women on screen purely as sex props and not in some two bit low production value shoot em up. I mean high art like countless examples in the recent past. Edgy concepts like rape, domestic abuse and general violence against women being accurately depicted on screen again when necessary to tell the story. I can appreciate strong women characters on screen but not when it’s a requirement that every woman on screen be one.
If Hollywood doesn’t figure this out in time, they will fail. Already shows like Kill Tony are becoming the biggest and most prolific stand-up shows in America. Those people can be truly funny because they have no boundaries. Listening to comics on every other show feels extremely boring now. SNL is unwatchable, late night talk shows are failing, “clean” comics play to empty arenas. The problem is those guys are straight up racist, homophobic, and misogynistic and tightly bound to the Trump administration.
I think we live in very different media environments. I have no idea what Kill Tony is, have always thought SNL and most late night was dull, and have a steady stream of good stand-up comedians who aren't any sort of ist or phobic in my timelines.
And I have no idea when
>> "Unapologetically promiscuous leading men, women on screen purely as sex props and not in some two bit low production value shoot em up. I mean high art like countless examples in the recent past."
would have been the norm. Even the worst of the Hays Code era had plenty of strong leading women. Before that, tons of lecherous women, queer women, etc.
Yeah we’re probably in different bubbles. The problem is most men are in my bubble. Shane Gillis is probably the biggest comedian to come out of kill Tony and the one you’re most likely to have heard of.
Here’s how it applies to the top 10 movies on IMDb
Shawshank redemption: the well liked male protagonist righteously murders his wife for cheating on him
The Godfather: pretty much encapsulates all of my requirements
12 angry men: no women
Original LOTR: Does women characters incredibly well
Pulp fiction: Mia is in there for a few key scenes, no nonsense
The good, the bad and the ugly: self explanatory. Great male characters
Forest gump: Jenny might be the greatest villain ever for her promiscuity
I can go on and on. All these movies have gravitas. You won’t see any movie post 2015 even crack the top 100 (besides Parasite but that isn’t Hollywood) because that’s about when they lost the plot.
Are you me? I do feel like I'm starting to forget git as a result of my happy jj use. Thankfully some repos use git submodules, which keeps me at least a little connected
When I'm working in git, I always start work by creating a new branch with a name. Sometimes the branch becomes something different as I work and then I might rename it or more often just keep a stale name around. But in git commit descriptions come later.
In jj, it's the opposite. I start with a change, and I often describe it right away. Branches (bookmarks) come at the end.
You could, in jj, tag a new empty change with a bookmark as soon as you create it. You don't have to advance the bookmark -- that the first change in a sequence of changes is tagged with a bookmark is probably as much information as you need?
Code review is about getting a team on the same page more broadly. The question posed in the article -- whether the change should be part of the product -- is certainly part of that. It's important to have a shared understanding on a team re what the code actually does and should do. But you can also use code review to align on architecture, best practices, road map.
I also find that code review helps a team feel like a team. It's nice to know anyone actually cares enough to pay attention to what you do, and feedback is an amazing gift that's really underrated.
"just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I always automate my repo setup, usually with mise tasks, but there's often assumptions baked in, eg around which ports the app will listen on. It's also still hard to get the agents to use "mise run test" instead of invoking pytest directly. This sounds harder to deal with when you have multiple copies of the test or dev stack running together on the same machine.
reply