I did this in high school, 1981-ish, as part of a weekly quotation-art project. I wrote the words out with a thick highlighter, then outlined them with a thin black Rapidograph pen.
(Since then, I independently reached more or less the same conclusion, having forgotten about the quote: curiosity and creativity are the only two things worth existing for.)
#JennyHypertwin really liked it, and asked if she could keep it.
I found it just this afternoon, in the folder where she saved alll 200+ of the notes I wrote to her.
@JulieSqveakaroo Definitely gotta watchem; never know what they're gonne get up to when yer not lookin'. 🕵️♀️
@bean That one DS9 episode where Quark gets a sex-change operation for an afternoon so he can make a business deal, and they don't do anything at all to make it believable.
Resetting the password was part of the procedures which were going to be done when the ship was fully provisioned, which was scheduled for... [checks datapadd]... next Tuesday.
I also was just a tad taken aback by the way Kirk & co. could take control of the Reliant with, like, no username and a passcode that was maybe 5 or 6 numeric digits (if memory serves).
...well, okay, maybe the Enterprise's computers filled in the username automatically, but that would only make it secure if the username itself was the secret and not something obvious like "ENTERPRISE" or "NCC1701".
...or, okay, hear me out: maybe the Enterprise's public key was in the Reliant's authorized_keys file -- but they could have at least alluded to that in the dialogue.
(If so, pretty clever of someone to have come up with the idea of public-key encryption in 1983 or whatever. Yeah, I'm sure they were just really clever and never thought to mention that detail because it was so obvious to them.)
...okay, okay, alternative theory: the authorization took place entirely behind the scenes, between the two ships' computers, and the number Kirk had Spock send was actually just a control-code to disable the Reliant's helm.
...Kirk, of course, being well-known as an ethically-questionable hacker back at the Academy.
@dredmorbius Yeah, I did have that reality in mind -- and I can report from my own personal experience that it can sometimes be extremely difficult to discern whether obliviousness is intentional or not.
That said, I think it's important talk about what we think politicians intend -- specifically: when they make or support bad policy, is there evidence to suggest that they were just misinformed, or are they using misinformation as a cover for deliberate malice/selfishness?
...and fortunately, we don't need to use the same standards-of-evidence employed in courtrooms, nor does any decision need to be final.
interpersonal relationships where someone consistently acts in a way that frustrates or harms someone else. The person acting that way may have the best of intentions, but the harms are consistent.
If someone hurts someone else, is aware of it, and doesn't show any sign of changing their behavior to prevent future harm -- then again, I'd call that a "wish". They're hoping they can push someone off a cliff without hurting them...
It's about results, yes -- but it's also about how people respond to results that don't match their stated intentions. That's where true intention is often revealed.
@EveHasWords That looks like it might be perfect! I'll have to try installing it later today. ^.^
@dredmorbius It's not the "where to store it" that's the problem; it's the "saving all the data" part (including timestamps, who posted, what each post is replying to).
I'm mainly interested in it for my own use in keeping a record of problematic discussions; I gather there are social-ethical issues around making them generally available (though things may have shifted since the last time it came up).
I did a fediblock (limit only -- I want the conversation to remain for reference purposes) entirely on my own initiative -- but as always this decision is reversible, so please feel free to chime in if you think I should (TC users especially). :tootcat:
Does anyone know of a good tool for archiving discussions in text format?
(...and... dang it, I really need to bookmark that graphical-archiving bot on Mathstodon, because I keep forgetting its name.)
I don't think you're arguing in good faith, so I'm blocking you.
The world already has enough bad-faith actors; we don't need to give them space on fedi.
Are you saying it's not a valid argument, even when it comes to general elections?
I'll agree that there are situations where it's a bad argument.
I suspect that when people say "intentions don't matter" in a political context, they're often talking about someone who was not actually being honest about their intentions.
Looked at another way, maybe the person who says "intentions don't matter" thinks of "intentions" as "what someone says they intend" rather than what someone actually intends.
I don't think that usage is justifiable, though I think it's an understandable mistake to make occasionally.
When it's repeated, however, I begin to suspect the speaker's... intentions.
"Intentions don't matter" is a pet-peeve of mine.
One understandable reason for saying it is if you mean "intentions" only in a very surface way -- like "the outcome you would prefer" rather than "the outcome you are working diligently to achieve"
To me, though, wanting an outcome without taking care to make it actually likely to happen is not an "intention" but a "wish".
"Intention", in my vocabulary, requires active care. You can't say you "intend" something if you just sit back and hope it happens, and never change your behavior when it doesn't.
It does not, however, require success. You can intend something and still fail at it.
The question of whether you let the failure happen or actively work to succeed next time, therefore, matters.
@zeenix This is a thing I want to do... (less for compiling and more for computing in general)
You're evading my current question. We need to establish where our realities overlap before we can discuss where they differ.
Back up a sec -- are you agreeing, at least, that there are some Democrats who are well-intentioned?
Okay, so you are in fact saying that they're not well-intentioned -- that basically nobody in the Democratic Party is well intentioned.
Are you including AOC? Mamdani? Is Bernie Sanders selling his soul by caucusing with them? Is Elizabeth Warren a Republican at heart?