You can try going to Settings > General > Reset then tap "Reset Keyboard Dictionary". I think this wipes everything iOS has stored about your typing habits so it should hopefully fix the issue
I must have entered my wife's name in lower case at some point, because it autocompletes everyone else's names with a capital but leaves hers lower cased.
I'm happy with my private, for-profit healthcare. But I'm also glad to support public healthcare services with taxes. It's not just one or the other, we can have both of them.
I will mention again for the fun of it, that private healthcare for profit works very fine in other places, like Switzerland for which I can vouch. There might be a lesson somewhere, maybe?
Have you considered purchasing your own weight rack?
Rogue sells a few pre-made one's that fold into the wall and occupy little space. It's a larger upfront investment but you can have free weight gear in your house and it will pay for itself fast.
If you're outside the USA, you can usually find a local welder / shop to make one for you.
Outside of strength training, you could go for long walks (I enjoy these).
If you find a fun community, Acro, BJJ, Climbing, Dance, Football / Soccer etc, you might have your day made.
I second the home gym. Got a fairly inexpensive progear rack, progear bench, and go beast dip rack. I already had the 45lb bar, curl bar and 300lbs of weights from a previous set so the upgrade was pretty seamless. Bought the cable pull down separately off Amazon for 1/4 of the price. Can now do almost every type of lift with no spotter. Yes is does take up most of a small room in my basement but for being in my 40s think I am the best shape of my life minus lung power hard for me to believe that. If you don’t have room push-ups pull-ups (playground near by?), sit-ups and jogging will be better than nothing. Also recommend an e-bike. Still get exercise but can travel faster and further making it practical. If you have money left over grab a one-wheel great for the core and closest thing to snowboard in the summer. Also great winter (snow) for snowboarding/skiing this year. Wow after writing that all out now know where all my money went, but hey it’s for my health. Cheers!
1- Have kids on your own via a sperm donor. Lori Gottlieb details her journey doing just so in the excellent book, “¿Maybe you should talk to someone?”
2- Just have fun. With kids off the table, you can find someone you can talk to—a lot lower stakes. Someone you like depending on.
My personal opinion is that prostitution by any person under 25 or maybe even 30 should be illegal. Once your brain is mature—sure, go ahead and do it. My experience with former prostitutes who started out young was that they were unaware of the price they eventually paid for their actions. They were taken advantage of because they were at a disadvantage. If you’re over 25 or 30 go ahead. Before that, it’s just so likely to end up wrong.
We need one age when a child becomes a an adult. Otherwise we end up with college juniors who can't drink a beer and highschool freshman who receive capital sentences. In both circumstances it seems that the rights of the young were curtailed for the benefit of the old.
Does that include normalising the minimum age allowed for a US President? (Currently 35 years old)
I don’t believe in a one age fits all laws approach. Where I’m from, most things switch to adult at 18 - including drinking, voting, enlisting. Murder/criminal convictions are possible before that.
I don’t think a killer should go free just because they were were 10 years old when they abducted, tortured, mutilated and killed a toddler. And then went on to become a pedophile.
The President is an odd scenario in relation to other heads of state, however William Pitt the Younger was only 24 when he was Premier of the British Empire at one of its highest points. While the age requirement for the Presidency has been observed, that hasn't always been the case with senators (30) or representatives (25). The youngest senator in American history (John Eaton) was inducted at the age of 28, and the youngest representative (William Charles Cole Claiborne) at the age of 21.
I've seen a lot of discussions that tend to go with 25 as the age of maturity, based on studies of brain development. It seems to me that the ages for things (weapons, voting, marriage, joining the military, drugs [alcohol, cigarettes, etc], entering a strip club, being charged as an adult, and so on) have been determined/changed over time separately, and there are exceptions to each rule as well as different standards in different parts of the world. I agree that 25 is a good standard generally for many things- although I also think a very important discussion needs to be had about the subject.
It's almost like it being illegal (and yet also in massive demand) creates a culture of exploitation that damages people more than the actual work does.
> My experience with former prostitutes who started out young was that they were unaware of the price they eventually paid for their actions. They were taken advantage of because they were at a disadvantage.
It feels like this line of thought would apply even stronger toward military service.
Is the argument here that people are too young to make an informed decision about military service before 25, but that it's important for our national security that some of them make that decision anyway? This feels a bit less like a response to GP's point, and a bit more like a more general argument that national security sometimes requires us to take advantage of minors.
If the argument is that social benefit sometimes outweighs moral costs, then that seems to me to be an argument that we should also look at the social/individual/financial costs of criminalizing prostitution and approach the issue at least partially through an effects-based lens rather than a purely moral one.
On the other hand, if we're willing to take a hard stand that some transactions aren't really consensual when incentives are involved, and that (particularly for minors under 25) some people aren't really able to make fully informed decisions about some topics in general -- well, it's not that I'm against that conclusion, I do think that incentives and life situations and information/maturity do play into whether or not a contract/interaction can be actually consensual in a real sense. But it's just... that conclusion has implications, and I don't think those implications can be swept under the rug just because the military is important.
How is prostitution a disadvantage in a country where it's legalised and regulated, exactly? Seems like you're using your own prejudices and applying them broadly
Vast majority of voluntary prostitution services providers have major issues. Mental health issues, substances abuse and so on.
Looking at all sorts of research, having sex come with an emotional baggage for vast majority of people. Which is natural given the evolutionary role.
Can it benefit a society to push vulnerable people to provide services that are likely to cause mental instability? Can it even be seen as a neutral at bottom line?
Buying side is usually riddled with all sorts of issues too.
As a society, we should strive towards helping people to find mates organically and help to build lasting relationships.
Citation needed. It's highly dependent on the country ( e.g. the Maldives sure as hell don't need an army, but a navy/coast guard is important), it's circumstances (nobody is endangering the US or Canada in any way).
Military is used, the vast majority of the time, as a deterrent to prevent threats. There's a war going on in Ukraine right now that is a good example of how sometimes "getting along" isn't an option, for one of the parties, who didn't have a sufficient deterrent.
You have to either accept that some humans are "bad", and have deterrents for them, or you have wait for a "bad" human to come and take what they want.
> could have been avoid if both sides tried to get along
I don't understand this. Putin believes Russia will benefit more from not getting along, taking what he thinks Russia needs, meaning he thinks that the current war is the best course of action, and beneficial in the long term. What would the motivation be for "getting along" when that would be detrimental? Agreements can't alway be made, because "best" is different depending on the perspective. For example, look at Nazi Germany. Non violent mechanisms wouldn't convince them that genocide wasn't the best course of action.
> Its possible to have mechanisms to deal with bad actors that aren't blatant threats of violence
Do you have an example, ideally one that has proven successful in the past? Currently, sanctions, limiting bank transactions, etc are used as non violent mechanisms. All of these were used against Russia, yet tanks still came over the border. What sort of non violent mechanism do you think could have been used have been to stop, or now remove, the Russian tanks within the Ukrainian border?
When I say this, I don't mean it in a way that is belittling, but you might want to look at some history books for examples of the perceived irrationality of leaders that result in wars. You can't always make someone agree with you.
This idea that 25 is the true age of maturity... is it possible that the thing that makes a 25 year old mature is having had 7 years of adult responsibilities?
If we set the age of adulthood to 25, maybe people won't be mature until 32.
This is biological maturity, as in when the brain is done forming. But, to your point, I wonder how much of that formation is guided by “soft” constructs like social maturity. Assuming it was delayed, maybe you end up with a different brain formation.
The brain physically reaches maturity at around that age. From memory, the last place to finish development is the prefrontal cortex (where decision making occurs).
The comments here are surprising in regards to how many people assume all people in a major city are rational decision makers.
There's this utopian notion that sex workers are just like you and me, except their hard on their luck so they're choosing to do sex work and so we should make it as legal as possible for them.
The truth is nearly all sex workers are drug addicts that need serious help.
Like assuming gun owners are all rational people or motorcycle riders should be able to make the correct decision about protecting their head.
Some things in life, the state should deter people from doing in everyway possible because it's just extremely horrible for humans to engage in.
> The truth is nearly all sex workers are drug addicts that need serious help.
This isn’t true and it varies by region and country. It’s a very condescending view.
Some are people looking to pay for college. Some are drug addicts. Some are people who struggle academically and have untreated disabilities and found sex work is something that they can do. Some are people who want side money to buy a Gucci bag or something.
Most sex workers aren’t 80 pound meth addicts walking under a highway overpass at 3 am. In 2022, most sex workers are making deals online, in clubs, and various institutions. Plus there’s the whole sex streamer business which is absolutely massive.
> The truth is nearly all sex workers are drug addicts that need serious help.
That's just bullshit. Maybe it's valid for some subset of sex workers in some jurisdiction where sex workers is illegal and dangerous so only few really desperate people do it, but it's a ludicrously bad sweeping statement.
In places where sex work is legal, regulated, safe and with healthcare, that's simply untrue, verifiably so.
Not in America. In America there’s not enough workers for regular jobs. And academic studies should be taken with a grain of salt in this context. For one, sex workers are known to lie about their motivations. And two, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that a middle aged woman would rather not perform oral sex on a stranger in a back alley for 20 bucks. They only do it for a fast fix.
"The truth is nearly all sex workers are drug addicts that need serious help" maybe this correlation holds because prostitution is illegal. In the sense that non drug addicts wont choose it because of the illegality.
One of the most popular Chinese movies is “San Guo” or “3 Kingdoms”. This is historical fiction. There was a battle then just as there is still a battle now…in Taiwan.
From 1920 or so, a few groups, but mainly the CCP and the KMT (KuoMingTan) were battling for control of the mainland. The KMT lost, and so they fled to Taiwan. This battle is alive and well today.
In fact, rumor has it that Xi Jingping’s father whom served as the head of Canton wanted to secede in disagreement with Beijing and because there is still a history of Canton standing on its own.
Saying that a country of 1.5 billion people has inner conflicts is like saying that water is wet.
It doesn't mean anything actually other than they have a lot of history means a lot of conflicts. It happened everywhere.
Also if they can disagree, it means that there is some space for disagreement.
In Catalunya some believe they should be independent from Spain, in Italy some people in Sicily and other northern regions say they should be independent from Italy.
That doesn't make them any less culturally similar to the people around them.
I’ve seem 2 or 3 comments citing “no perceptible difference” in double blind studies on the topic of taste.
For such flavorful a subject, I find that there are so many N=1 cases such that you often need to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt.
Furthermore, processed and packaged food providers are not exactly good faith actors. If they happened to the be the ones funding the study, thrn sure—there would be no perceptiple difference because that is what they want to find. Citing the actual study and the background of the scientisits / reviewer is also important because to me, these entities need to prove trustworthiness.
It probably isn’t weird to think about returning the kids…but it is certainly weird to do it. More than weird, it is disrespectful, cowardly, and inconsiderate.
When you decide to have kids by adoption or by natural birth—they should never be abandoned.
No matter what they do—you are with them for those ~18 years and hopefully many more.
Unlike a spouse—kids are dependents. And your commitment is to make sure they have someone they can depend on.
If you don't want your kids are you saying it's better off to keep them? Isn't adopting them out a way to make sure they have someone they can depend on?
Seems to me it's more "disrespectful/weird/cowardly/inconsiderate" to make some kid suffer for years living in a home where they're unwanted.
Everyone has a limit, until you've been pushed past it (and even after), you don't know exactly where it is, and of course it can change.
Every child will have a different impact on your limits, I can certainly understand how a person could be pushed past their limits, by their own child and more-so a relatively unknown child, and I have a lot of sympathy for people in those situations (even the most horrific ones).
As for "society", "they", give parents very little support, it may be different for foster parents but without researching much, I don't have much faith.
Whether society "ought" to be setup this way, that's a hard one, make it too easy and we self-select for a bunch of massive families with an endless bill of support.
My feel is we're erring too much on the side of a lack of support, especially less "social" (e.g. scandinavian countries) focused countries such as USA, UK, AU.
If "society" feels responsible for the welfare of these kids, then society should recognize a kid is better off in a home where they are wanted. This is so obvious I don't understand why it even needs explained.
A kid is not better off in a home where they are wanted, necessarily.
Continuity may be more important, and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
If you simply go by the metric of putting a kid in the home where they are best off, then we can dispense with saying the biological or adopted parents are "necessarily" where the kid should be. We now know you don't think children are "necessarily" better off where they are wanted. Instead perhaps we can use your metric, and assign child to a home where they're "better off" after birth rather than to their biological parents or the person who wants to adopt them. This system could mean assigning the child to an entirely different country and culture at birth "in the interest of the child."
>Continuity may be more important
Continuity is not the only factor at play here. Continuity can turn into a bad thing where you're continuously somewhere where you aren't wanted.
> and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
The article is about families "un-adopt" a child. It's intellectually dishonest, and ignorant, to make this statement in the context of an article where it's so incredibly into the boolean "false" state of wanting.
Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.
Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing. Moving kids out of homes they’re not in danger in is a bad idea, as the article explains.
I reject the notion continuity with an unwanting parent is always the "best thing" and I've read quite a few anecdotes from people raised in such a situation that they wished the parents who didn't want them would yield to someone who did. Sure anecdotes don't prove it's always the case, but it shows it's not never the case either. Once again, continuity can turn into a bad thing if the continuous state is "unwanted." I'd rather spend at least _some_ time with people that want me than all my time with people that don't.
>>A kid is not better off...
>Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.
You're now contradicting yourself. Earlier you were worried about the kid being where they were better off. Now you say that's a terrible idea. You lack continuity.
I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best off, I'm worried about moving kids out of situations that are "below the line" of tolerability. The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.
Your idea of moving children from home to home in a search for their "best" home is not a viable one, and you know that. The fact that you continue to argue is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally, not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing.
>I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best of
Again you contradict yourself. Earlier you were worried about what's "best." Now you claim you're not. The fact that you continue to contradict yourself is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally (nor with 'continuity'), not not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.
Spending a childhood with a family that doesn't want you presents the possibility of higher "problematic damage" than having the option to move to one that does.
Repeatedly engaging in your contradictory arguments isn't really something you should act on, nor is it something society ought to let you indulge. We're in agreement, there isn't much point in allowing you to indulge in these fallacies further. Adios.
Given the number of children in foster care or worse, the choice isn't between being in a home where you're wanted and one where you're not wanted, it's being in a home where you're not wanted or not in a home. Which do you think is worse for a child?
If there are SO MANY willing parties, why are the foster and adoption systems overloaded with children? Where are all these good Christian families who want to adopt these children!?
If it's so hard to find people to adopt, why on earth would we limit the pool even further by ensuring people can be 100% sure they can handle and integrate whatever random child they end up with? That's an impossible task, and would vastly reduce the potential adopter pool even further.
Sometimes adoption process fails, and the family can't handle the kid, perhaps even after years in that family. You can't just shut them in together like trapped rats with no escape hatch to seek another family to adopt so the kid has some chance of being with a family that wants them.
“No matter what” covers a lot of territory. What if your adopted child seriously harms your new baby because they have severe attachment disorder? Are psychopathic, whatever?
Lots of children available for adoption have all kinds of problems that standard parents can’t deal with.
Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.
When you are way in over your head, the way out is to push through the dip.
A startup will have that moment.
A theatre production will have that moment.
Pretty much everything will have that moment.
Kids too. My biological brother almost drowned me and we somehow worked it out.
Having kids is a very serious affair. They didnt choose to have you. You chose to have them. It is probably the most important arena in life. Time to step up to the plate.
Almost being drowned once can't possibly be compared to forcing a kid to spend 18 years with parents who don't want them. I'm sure there may even be significant trauma from your near death experience, and I'm very sorry you experienced it. But the feeling a child has from a life in an unwanted family has to be, often times, as bad or worse.
If the board or the executive of a startup sees there is no chance of success with the executive, that person ought to bow out or be replaced so the company can have a chance with someone who can and wants to turn it around. If the startup becomes unviable and bankrupt, sometimes it's better to bow out and gracefully transfer the assets to a more viable executive and/or business rather than force something that isn't going to work.
I'm not saying that people should give up easily, but I think it's brave that some families recognize the better option for everyone is to re-adopt the kid a family that wants them rather than force them to live somewhere that's headed towards a train-wreck.
> What if your adopted child seriously harms your new baby because they have severe attachment disorder? Are psychopathic, whatever?
"Whatever" covers a lot of territory. Do you think "standard" children of "standard" parents don't do that? Where do you think all the school bullies and little entitled pricks and princesses come from? Some of them even manage to get elected in the office for some bizarre reason.
> Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.
Abandoning your child is already a widespread thing, you just don't even think about it that way. It's when one of the parents walks away because they're "in way over my head". It's essentially cancelling the contract and saying fuck this, I can't do it.
So I really don't know where are you going with this.
I still love Objective-C. And to me—I'm so amazed that Apple added "Property Syntax" and "Properties". It's pretty easy to do much of this with Macros (which could have been baked into the system) and the language stays very simple.
You would have 2 lines of code per property but one fewer concept—and I think that is a much more important factor. To me—this was not the right way to add sugar.
As someone who started learning Objective-C only after Swift become firmly established, I have to say I strangely like the language. I picked it up fast and have had no issues with adding features to a legacy codebase.
When I started, I thought it would be some complicated beast, but no - its a reasonably simple and elegant C superset with the only disadvantage of some extra verbosity. (but Apple API's suffer from verbosity as a principle)
I have to wonder: why did Apple create Swift ? Objective-C is quite nice, especially for C/C++ programmers. With Objective-C++, interop with C++ libraries is also terrific. Swift offers nothing like this yet.
I thought it should be obvious. Apple was competing with Google/Android for mobile developers. For Android, you programmed in Java, which everyone learned in school. For iOS, this funny language with smalltalk syntax was a barrier to entry.
So Apple needed a nice language with C-like syntax to woo developers.
I know Chris lather's intention. And I have read and listen to all the interview he did. I think the question should be, Why was it necessary for Apple to bet on Swift. Something I dont think Bertrand Serlet or Avie Tevanian would have done.
They wanted a safe, performant language that interoperates with Objective-C. Safety gets them fewer vulnerabilities, interoperability means they can gradually decrease (Objective-)C usage.
Also:
- opinions on the nicety of Objective-C differ (but the only arguments I’ve heard why it would be bad more or less are “I don’t like the syntax” and “it’s verbose”, both of which, IMO, are weak. Both, IMO, are acquired tastes. I don’t think anybody is born preferring terse K&R C, for example.
ARC has been there for almost a decade now. Also if you wish to do heavy string concatenation, please use a NSMutableString and you can simply do:
[string1 appendString:string2];
It is amazing that people forget to simply use the right tool for the right job and blame the PL instead.
Chris Lattner has mentioned that in a couple of interviews, there is a limit how much they could improve Objective-C towards being a safe systems programming language, exactly due to its C heritage.
Yeah, no macros in Swift is a bit of an odd choice. It means that every would-be macro has to go through the language evolution process and be blessed by the Swift team. You can't release macro-like functionality, such as Rust's serde, without support from Apple.
It's been more than a year—and every time I type "Good night" it still suggests my ex-girlfriend.
ARGHHHH