YouAreLiterallyAnNPC

"Ah you think depression is your ally? You merely adopted the depression. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see optimism until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but unrealistic idealism!" - Me.. and.. most millennials, probably.

That's nice. But.. what's that got to do with the price of fish? Or the price of tea in China?

I'm going to invite you to another angle, and it's one with a premise that people are still scratching their heads over -- forewarning: no matter how honest or objective you try to be about these subjects, this is one of those things where you can't have a public discussion about it and come out unscathed. Even if people don't really have a formed opinion of their own. All well.

Natural selection is still taking place. It was never about "idiots" dying off. That's a bit of a misconception. So let's drop that rhetoric -- even if you wish to keep that opinion. Remember that people can still have plenty of children before doing something terribly stupid and then dying as a result.

In fact, natural selection is in overdrive and stronger than ever. Once you try to grapple with that you'll need a few more pieces to see a more clear picture of why I believe this. Now, for you down voters: I'm not advocating an idea here --even natural selection-- or stating facts so much as trying to understand and communicate the way I see things. If you can't understand the nuance in that, then feel free to continue -- the button is below.

I'll begin by addressing the drivers of modern natural selection in the order of what I believe to be the most impactful. Beware that none of this is to discredit or find fault in either men or women -- but the concept of natural selection, and all of its woes, are directly tied to having successfully reproduced.

1. Women now have more access to information and communication tools than ever, and that's a good thing -- as are women. I shouldn't have to state that I believe these to be good things, but here we are. Women are, now more than ever, demanding more value from life at all angles. Including, if not especially, men.

2. Social Media. All these things are tied to my first point. Women, especially younger women, have a better idea of the sorts of things they desire to the point where it will even cause them to feel a decline in their well-being for not having access to it. This may help inform them in a way that they develop other life goals or objectives, rather than participating in a less than desirable relationship.

3. Family Traditions: Less women are being forced into marriages, whether the marriage is arranged or simply obeying their families desire to marry as the families see fit. Self agency -- good.

4. Everything else. There are many more drivers -- including things not related to women, I just covered what I believe to be the top three -- I feel I need to state here again, none of this is to blame or find fault in anyone -- man or woman, or anyone else. It's simply an attempt to try to make sense of the world around me.

Why I believe the above can be evidenced by a couple of simple metrics: a steep decline in birth rates across most of the world, and the ~~male~~ loneliness epidemic. This may not fit comfortably into the idea that death is the main driver of natural selection, but as I've already stated, I never believed that it was. Whether natural selection is the correct model to fit this world view into or not and the unpopularity of that model; that would be a different discussion altogether and I'd rather just fit this into the framework of the discussion than have a disclaimer before every sentence for internet points, as I feel I've already had to add too many.

I'll humor this, even though I'm tired of answering this same question. I'll do you a favor and give you the short version, first: Inflation has nothing to do with how currency is distributed and everything to do with the supply of currency in circulation. Now that we've established the basic concept, let's break some of it down. If there's $100 in circulation, it doesn't matter if one person has all of it, or 100 people have $1. The value of $1 is the same. If $1000 is in circulation, then $100 is worth less than if only $100 is in circulation, even if one person has $901 and everyone else has $1. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why do you believe that money is somehow worth more if its distribution is unequal? If people buy more stuff, that's called a healthy economy. If people buy 'too much milk and the prices go up' then someone will sell milk for less to undercut the competition in a healthy economic system. If you can't sell it for less, you innovate. If you can't innovate, or sell for less, then you can't compete and you lose. Everyone being able to afford more milk doesn't cause $1 to be worth less. Of course, this example isn't realistic anymore, but that's due to capitalism failing -- the underlying principals of the example still hold true.

I always thought I was one of the few people that saw Eve as the libertarian dystopia that it is. I certainly thought I was the only one that held it up as a ready example of what libertarianism looks like when fully executed -- now that I think about it, this must be a more popular idea than I realized. Complete with nullsec monopolies and everything. All this in a space that features no scarcity other than real-estate. The end game of libertarian ideals in the Eve example ends in monopoly and the accumulation of absurd amounts of power into the hands of few select individuals. What's striking is how well run things are on the fleet level, only for the corporate leaders to often be wasteful, populist, of questionable moral fiber, and generally irresponsible -- albeit not as a rule. They also have a penchant for casually destroying those that disagree with them. It stands as an excellent example.

On this note; given that it's suspected that Earth has only a good ~800 million years or so left, that may not even be enough time for another sentient species to emerge with enough time to become technologically sufficient enough to .. avert extinction -- much less undo some of the damage that we have done. We have to grapple with the idea that if we fail as a species, we'll be the only and last sentient species on Earth to have emerged. Or as I like to call it: Get filtered, nerd.

There actually is an array in any POSIX shell. You get one array per file/function. It just feels bad to use it. You can abuse 'set -- 1 2 3 4' to act as a proper array. You can then use 'for' without 'in' to iterate over it.

for i; do echo $i; done.

Use shift to pop items off.

If I really have to use something more complex, I'll reach for mkfifo instead so I can guarantee the data can only be consumed once without manipulating entries.

Either use a straw or only fill one side? Is that cheating?

Great. I have plenty of money and hate contributing to society in any meaningful manner -- I consume only. I'll manage the crop pickers from my phone, though. When do you start?

The Buddhist then pulls a gun out from beneath his robes and points it at the hot dog vendor. The vendor exclaims, 'I thought all Buddhists were peaceful!' The monk then says, 'Every monk carries with him his inner piece.'

I'm not sure anyone here works for the DNC. We're not trying to get ourselves elected. People are absolutely allowed to criticize others for the intended consequences of their actions when they get exactly what's expected. In this case, they've alienated themselves.

Not disagreeing. However, it still kind of feels like we're trying to solve wolves to fix a human problem. You know?