💩 Shit I just heard in my office
-
Ok. You're still doing it wrong.
Probably. I still can't find a better solution given the constraints within which I have to do this shit. And not for the lack of trying.
Don't ask if you don't want to hear the answer.
I do. And I'm aware of the WTF I'm committing here and I'd like for it to be gone. I'd even ask for help here, but I think there is one, maybe two people here who even know what all of this stuff is.
I'm 99% confident that I know what the only other option is. Which would then mean even more code scattered about (also, most likely PHP) and using yet another interface with WTFs of its own. No thanks.
-
I have no idea. It was a panel on home automation. It was part if his rube Goldberg machine to get an ir remote to control his lights and fans. He originally had a windows PC running and then he moved to a pi. I was very lost on how the http request tied in tbh.
-
smileyAnother generation discovers why the otherwise-ridiculous term "emoticon" was invented.
-
-
O RLY?
I was wondering if someone would say that.
He could nitpick and say that curl != libcurl.I might actually try out libcurl some time if it can help me with my keep-alive connections in one of my apps. Especially if I can use it with an http proxy.
-
He could nitpick and say that curl != libcurl.
Well, curl the program is a thin wrapper round libcurl the API and library. But if you have one you have the other, so the nits that are picked are very picky nits.
-
Another generation discovers why the otherwise-ridiculous term "emoticon" was invented.
Vomiting is an emotion now?
-
In the same way that
is an emotion, I guess
-
That's why I've taken to the new term - emojicon.
I think that sufficiently (but not completely) describes this hodge-podge mess of graphical icons that we use today. Good enough for government work, as they say.
And screw you @RaceProUK, you picked that one on purpose, didn't you? Because I do have an emotion related to those things.
-
This wasn't technically in my office but elsewhere.
People bitching about the birth of a royal baby as not special when they celebrate travelling 93 million miles through space and think it is....
Referring, of course, to birthdays.
I then pulled the pendant card.
93m mi is only the approximate radius, the actual distance travelled is nearer to 584 million miles. By that logic I've travelled 18.4bn miles in my life, which is pretty awesome.
It's not nearly
worthy enough though 
-
Well, the whole baby thing is like for famous people, so whatever. What I found ridiculous was the guy at the front door yelling for worship of the new princess in some dumbass custom. Like going back in time. Makes you wonder how impossible it is for England to ever be a republic.
Also, is that guy a full time job or is it something he gets specially called for?
-
There's famous people babies and there's royal babies, and seeing how this one is like fourth in line to the throne, it's considered fairly important.
England - or even the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - is unlikely to ever be a republic. We are quite happy being a constitutional monarchy for the most part, lot of history and tradition there, hell our civil war was between the king and Parliament of the day.
As for the guy that makes that announcement, I believe he's a flunky at the palace in general and that's one of his special jobs.
-
By that logic I've travelled 18.4bn miles in my life, which is pretty awesome.
Only if you ignore the distance that the Sun has been dragging us in that time. Which surely complicates your calculations in more way than one.
-
Of course it does but I wasn't going for accuracy, I was going more for the general 'it's not 93 million miles' angle and an approximation at best.
Damn you trying to out-pendant my pendantry!
-
In which reference frame?
-
Must everyone out-pendant me today?!
-
-
Nah, more whiny that the first time in months I've had something pendantic and with a hint of dickweed, I get out-pendanted with it.
-
If you wanna get technical, son, there was more than a hint of dickweedery, but it just wasn't enough.
-
I know this. I'm just not enough of a dickweed to qualify. -sigh-
-
Must everyone out-pendant me today?!
I didn't go any farther in my pendantry to give you an (hopefully) easy follow up. You know us...beat it until it's dead. Then the fun really starts.
-
Oh yes, I took my attempt at pendantry elsewhere
-
England - or even the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - is unlikely to ever be a republic. We are quite happy being
You guys are idiots.
Why? Answer this question: Why is that family in particular royalty?
Know the answer and know enlightenment.
-
Oh, I know the history of my country, including the fact that none of them are actually English by bloodline and in fact are originally German - the Saxe-Coburg Gothas - and renamed themselves to Windsor last century for political reasons.
And if you go way way back you'll get to 1066 when the French invaded, and then beyond that to the time of the Celtic tribes which were all separate and at some point in that first millennium got unified, and someone declared themselves as their leader by way of military force. It's drastically simplified but you get my drift.
Our government is quite happy with the tax money coming in from all the tourists looking at the quaint British royals.
-
looking at the quaint British royals.
You think I was going to make a financial argument? You know me not at all.
-
I have no idea what kind of argument you were going to make, nor do I especially care. I'm aware of my country's history, I'm aware of what contribution they make to this country and the limits of their power, and I'm OK with this.
-
Our government is quite happy with the tax money coming in from all the tourists looking at the quaint British royals.
This is what the anti-royal campaigners always forget: we as a country earn so much more through tourism than we'd save by getting rid of them.
-
Right; but you are an idiot. As is everybody who supports this farce.
-
They, like me, are probably completely uninterested in the financial argument.
-
This is what the anti-royal campaigners always forget: we as a country earn so much more through tourism than we'd save by getting rid of them.
And the other thing they forget is that the Civil List (and its current successor) was and is actually funded from the proceeds of the Crown Estate.
Basically George III handed the royal estates over to the government in 1760 in return for a grant (the Civil List) and a few other favours (like cancelling his debt.) That ran until 2012 where it was changed to a percentage of the net income from the Crown Estate (currently 15%.)
-
Right; but you are an idiot. As is everybody who supports this farce.
TIL supporting my country's cultural history makes me an idiot.
-
TIL supporting my country's cultural history makes me an idiot.
Bullshit. Continuing to rely on PHP for your livelihood makes you an idiot.
-
Bullshit. Continuing to rely on PHP for your livelihood makes you an idiot.
Who should I believe, you or blakeyrat as to the source of my idiocy?
-
Who should I believe, you or blakeyrat as to the source of my idiocy?
I think it's more of an
||.
-
Bullshit. Continuing to rely on PHP for your livelihood makes you an idiot.
Better than smegging JavaScript.
-
-
Political reasons. At state visits, monarchs make better impressions by default than presidents. Also, a monarch who rules for 20-30 years ends up costing the state less than a president, who holds his seat for 4 to 14 years (depending on country) and wants to leave a lasting impression.
There is occasional discussion in The Netherlands for moving to a purely ceremonial Kingship, where the King no longer has any actual official power. I expect this will happen some time in the next 20-30 years.
-
At state visits, monarchs make better impressions by default than presidents.
Maybe in Euro-land. Not in, say, South America.
Also, a monarch who rules for 20-30 years ends up costing the state less than a president, who holds his seat for 4 to 14 years (depending on country) and wants to leave a lasting impression.
I. Do. Not. Give. A. Shit. About. Financial. Arguments.
Jesus, people. The only reason you ever give for keeping a tyrannical murdering scam artist asshole's descendants political power by default is, "it's cheaper"? Seriously? If that's the only reason, maybe kick those assholes to the curb, eh?
-
At state visits, monarchs make better impressions by default than presidents.
In what sense? Would you rather be greeted by a figurehead or the dude who can call in a drone strike? Or, well, anything else?
There is occasional discussion in The Netherlands for moving to a purely ceremonial Kingship, where the King no longer has any actual official power.
What power does he currently have?
-
If you bothered to read my posts, you will notice I acknowledged the lack of actual power involved here. The monarch in this country has not had significant political power in a very long time. You know, the King losing the civil war to Parliament sort of demonstrated that 360 or so years ago.
Oh and if you're going down the tyrannical murdering scam artist line, I think you'll find your presidents have managed more of that than our monarchs have, at least in the last 100 or so years.
-
The monarch in this country has not had significant political power in a very long time. You know, the King losing the civil war to Parliament sort of demonstrated that 360 or so years ago.
But he got better after that.
-
No, no, it was just a flesh wound.
-
If you bothered to read my posts, you will notice I acknowledged the lack of actual power involved here.
Doesn't matter to me. I think people should succeed or fail on their own merits.
Oh and if you're going down the tyrannical murdering scam artist line, I think you'll find your presidents have managed more of that than our monarchs have, at least in the last 100 or so years.
Wow, seriously? You get some warped history there in Euro-land. Just as a pro-tip, we're right at the 100th anniversary of a major global war started by a bunch of countries with monarchies. Fortunately, most of them ended up gone by the end of the war.
-
Oh and if you're going down the tyrannical murdering scam artist line, I think you'll find your presidents have managed more of that than our monarchs have, at least in the last 100 or so years.
Best fit for murderous...Waco?
Tyrannical...Japanese-American internment camps in WWII?
Scam artist...this one certainly fits the bill.
-
In what sense? Would you rather be greeted by a figurehead or the dude who can call in a drone strike? Or, well, anything else?
I'm not sure - this is a second-hand argument I heard years ago in this context, and don't have a reference to.
What power does he currently have?
Probably more than people think, even officially. I would not be surprised if he could technically sign a royal decree to disband parliament, though I doubt he'd last long after such an action.
In practice, it is very hard to say. His mother ruled for 33 years, which made her a very constant factor in Dutch politics, with a lot of knowledge about the political process. And which decisions were made via the 'normal way', rather than by the King¹, is impossible to determine because of ministerial responsibility².
¹: In Dutch law, the ruling monarch is indicated as King, regardless of the gender of the incumbent.
²: Ministerial responsibility means that the political consequences of any decision rest with the member of cabinet under whose responsibility that decision falls, even if the decision was actually made by the King.
-
Germany has an elected figurehead (currently: Gauck) in addition to the people who have the actual power. They clearly do it more correctly than anyone else!
-
Germany has an elected figurehead (currently: Gauck) in addition to the people who have the actual power.
Yes, I'm familiar with countries who do this. We have obviously combined the Head / Chief of State roles.
-
Best fit for murderous...Waco?
I'm guessing Arantor doesn't know our system and doesn't realize the actual military action requires the consent of Congress.
Waco is about the biggest debacle you can pin on a specific President I can think of also. I mean, it's possible Iran-contra killed more people but we don't have any specific data on that as far as I know.
But even if you include wars, and use the 100-year time period, we're way behind. Waaay.
-
I'm guessing Arantor doesn't know our system and doesn't realize the actual military action requires apathy about enforcing the scope of the consent of Congress.
Compare and contrast the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" and what our military is actually doing. Show your work.
-
Congress passed that authorization, and could revoke it any time they wanted. So no, it doesn't change what I said.
