Odd, Superbad is the only movie I’ve ever seen twice (or more) in the theaters.

I saw it and thought it was the funniest movie I’d ever seen, then a couple weeks later my buddy wanted to see a movie so I saw it a second time with him. No regrets.

Good to know we can just “teach” any imaginary thing we want. It sounds like it’d be neat? Fuck it, let’s teach it.

What?! No! How could this have been Linux’s “killer feature”?

Am I taking crazy pills? It really matters to you that you can use a single command to upgrade your system?

and the weighing is the entire problem.

It’s also the fundamental value prop.

Dude I fucking hate those Linux ubernerds, and think that “looks shitty” is almost a Hallmark of your classic Linux application, but… you have no idea what you’re talking about. (…Also I don’t think you know what a “kernel” is.)

“40 year head start” is one hell of a fallacy. As if MS and Apple from 1983 are meaningfully related (in this sense) to what they are and do now.

The fundamental difference, anyway, is cross-platform compatibility. What percent of Linux users even use desktop office suites and shit like that? The desktop world has been moving to the browser for 15+ years and both Chrome and Firefox are practically identical on every OS.

Linux has a long way to go, but the stuff you were listing is madness.

What the fuck are all these comments?

It’s an article about an unresolved and recurring problem with a popular drive that the ostensibly reputable manufacturer is trying to hide.

But 90% of the comments are people jerking themselves off about how smart they are for using RAID, which is irrelevant to the point of the article… But never miss an opportunity to pleasure yourself in public I guess?

Ha, well, yeah this pretty much tracks.

To paraphrase: “if we only pay attention to the most fundamental requirements and ignore any nuance and subtlety that’s added, the implementation is perfect. What’s the problem?”

Or: “Why care about the body of the post when there’s at title?”

If this comment isn’t the perfect distillation of the frustration people have with GIMP, I don’t know what is.

OP makes a very even-handed, consciencious treatise to gather more info about alternatives to GIMP based on the UX issues they themselves have been struggling with and which are commonly recognized throughout the community, with at least one example, while acknowledging how incredible and powerful an undertaking a piece of software GIMP definitely is, and…

… The same cookie cutter response on every single GIMP discussion since 1998: “IT IS VERY POWERFUL. WHAT FEATURE IS IT MISSING?”

Similar to GIMP itself: You’re not wrong you’re just… Not being anywhere near as helpful as you could be.

I know a girl who thinks of ghosts. She’ll make you breakfast; she’ll make you toast. But she don’t use butter. And she don’t use cheese. She don’t use jelly, or any of these.

She uses Vaseline.

Vaseline.

Vaseline.

… you are correct that if I’m unfamiliar with your terminology, I will not know what you mean.

You are incorrect that if I understand the definition of a “partial Kundalini awakening” I will not have a shared understanding. I can’t imagine why that would be true.

If by spiritual you mean “hurt my teeth” then sometimes eating ice cream is spiritual for me.

Otherwise, I’m not sure what spiritual means, as I said.

I also agree, because we all pretty much understand what “happy” means.

No one seems to understand what “spiritual” means with any definition, and hence we shouldn’t just be using it like we do, in my opinion.

Apparently for you it means “gives you perspective into your own insignificance”, when I think for many people it, instead, means, “offers evidence for God or at least for the supernatural, in a non-spooky way”.

So… it’s a good way to get a group of people all talking about different things and feeling like they’re agreeing about things they don’t necessary agree by means of an equivocation fallacy.

Thanks. Respectfully, though, it sounds like you are saying it’s OK to take an event that happened to you and arbitrarily decide that it’s going to be called “spiritual” without knowing what that means?

And then other people can take their own definitions that might be different, and read your story and be like, “Oh, I understand what this person means,” without actually knowing… potentially adding or removing their own meanings to it (the implication of the existence of a dirty, say) when that wasn’t part of the original person’s construct?

Because if that’s right, I don’t think I can go for that.

One cannot have a “spiritual” experience without having a shared definition of spiritual that isn’t just a deepity.

I would urge anyone who wants to share their “spiritual” experience to give a solid definition for the term first.