I'm generally highly suspicious of any picture of a piece of paper with writing on it posted on social media.

"Remember when I promised I'd fix your computer?"
"That's right! You did!"
"I lied."

I mean the other lyrics really do back it:

So here's a story from A to Z You wanna get with me, you gotta listen carefully
We got Em in the place who likes it in your face
We got G like MC who likes it on an—
Easy V doesn't come for free, she's a real lady
And as for me, ha-ha, you'll see
Slam your body down and wind it all around
Slam your body down and wind it all around

Basically they're walking you through what you gotta do to please each one of them. Baby wants the lingus, Ginger and Sporty by contrast want it on an "e" - i.e. ecstasy, Posh of course only gets off if you buy her expensive stuff first, and only then do you prove yourself worthy of Scary, who will beat the living shit out of you.

Having gone from the guy with no matches to getting good matches, in part from advice from female friends, here's what worked for me in order of priority:

1. De-red flag. Remember, men are about 5-10x as likely to commit acts of violence as women. So imagine you're looking at your profile as a third person, assuming there's a good chance you're a serial killer. Make sure your jokes are clearly jokes and can't be read as hinting at any extreme beliefs or even overall weirdness. Seriously, there's like a 90% chance that if you haven't done this already, you've got something on your profile that's terrifying to most women. Now a common faulty cognition I see is "I should tell her what other girls don't like about me as a warning". No, stop. That's not how you do it. Because girls will assume it's 1000% worse than what you're saying, and even worse the algorithm will nuke you if you get too many rejections. Instead, see step 4) and reject other girls who won't be into you.

2. Good pictures. Again, 1) comes into play here. No dark backgrounds. Nothing that looks like one of those pictures they show of suspects on the news. Outdoors is good. If you have pictures with people, great. If not, no sweat, just make it look good. Look up a guide on how to take a good selfie and use it.

3. Keep your written answers short. No one reads them anyway, unless they're really long and creepy. You're not going to convince her you're Shakespeare, she's really just checking to make sure you don't remind her of someone she had a terrible experience with.

4. Now all that being said, the best strategy for swiping is to be the opposite of most people. Don't just swipe on anyone who meets your attractiveness standards. Instead, swipe only on girls you'd really be excited to meet, and that you think would be excited to meet you too. Are you frugal? Don't swipe right on the model with a Gucci bag. I know it's hard. But you really have no chance of making it and dating her would make you miserable anyway. So swipe left and get the little boost that helps you meet a better match. I will say I've followed this strategy on Hinge which supposedly has a better algorithm for matching people, so I can't guarantee it for other sites.

I think about 90% of these posts that are images of random people's social media posts are just people not getting jokes

I give through my employer which matches donations. You should look into whether that's available since it'll double the amount.

Decentralized truth is essential to human freedom. It's not enough to just run wikipedia as a bare bones site, they need to be able to adapt to the times and maybe even fund new projects with the same goals. For people who actually care about the future, it's hard to think of a better use of the money.

Has anyone else made a successful pivot from software engineering to another field?

No, but I've done the complete opposite.

I’ve sent out 400+ applications

First rule of doing anything: if you hear grinding, you're doing something wrong and need to rethink your approach.

I've found it to be much easier to get my foot in the door with the help of a recruiter. There's a ton of them on linkedin, all you really need to do is start looking for jobs and they'll appear in your messages. Interact with them, even if it's just to say you're not interested - I think somehow this helps you show up in whatever algo linkedin uses. I've only very rarely gotten anywhere with applications. Recruiters help because they usually already have a relationship with the hiring manager.

Emphasis on usually, because you need to only work with recruiters that actually have that relationship. First clue is that they are physically located near the employer, and if they're actually an internal recruiter, all the better.

Second thing I'm guessing you're doing wrong is your resume. Remember that anyone filtering out through resumes is probably not a technical person and is just looking for keywords. So make sure every technology you've worked with is mentioned by its official name on your resume.

E.g.:

worked for 1.5 years at a major financial firm building data pipelines, working with financial datasets, and using technologies like Python, SQL, and AWS

Then make sure your resume includes "Python", "SQL", and "AWS", as well as the specific SQL you're using and the names of the specific AWS services, and whatever other cool keywords you can throw in about the financial systems you were working on. Even basic things like Git should be mentioned, because you never know when a HR person might have that on a list of qualifications.

I can say I've been looking at switching jobs within tech and I've been getting plenty of interest from recruiters. Now I do have a lot more experience, but I don't think that's the only factor as I'm also looking at more high-level jobs. The difference in approach is probably the key.

Left my iron plugged in for a week without realizing it.

Accidentally caused massive heat wave. Sorry folks, but I unplugged it so temps should start to go down now.

Yeah but first boyfriend/girlfriend drives me crazy because then I'm going back through my various early relationships trying to figure out who counts as a "girlfriend". I'd say Sherry was the first but she always said we were never really together. Well now you're a security question answer so you can't deny it anymore Sherry.

A lot of people are saying cut them off, but I have a family member who was into the anti-vax conspiracy theories and kinda still is, but it's much less of a focus now and is pretty obviously just being carried forward by cognitive dissonance at this point. There will never be total victory, but there can be a reasonable truce.

What I'd suggest is the most counter-intuitive strategy - show genuine interest. Say "Ok, I want to know more, but I need you to be specific. Tell me what your theory is and what the evidence is, I'll take my time looking at it, and respond in detail."

Keep in mind, they probably won't pay attention to whatever your respond with. That's ok. The response isn't the point, pinning them down on what they think is. So often these things are purely emotional, and forcing them into a logical framework will make them do the work for you. As for the response, odds are it's some combination of cherry-picked data and spurious correlations, if not outright made up facts. Think of alternate explanations for what they're showing you that are more plausible than a vaccine killing people. And remember that if the vaccine really was killing people, it would be really obvious, not something we need look deep into the matrix to find.

He didn't. The quotes in these tweets are fake. If I search for these quotes these tweets are the only results. Twitter is a hostile platform to reality as reality can get in the way of virality. Hence why you never see sources on twitter. This was likely written by someone with only a passing familiarity with gandhi's position on WWII who probably guessed at how he would speak based on his character in Civ.

What did gandhi actually think the Britiish should do in 1940? In his actual words:

I want you to fight Nazism without arms, or, if I am to retain the military terminology, with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have, as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

Basically he was speaking for an extreme form of non-violent civil disobedience, not capitulation.

Also a famous gandhi quote: "Stop believing everything you see on twitter you gullible rube"

The ancient romans actually didn't have gendered bathrooms. Or separate stalls. Just everything hanging out together, watching each other piss and shit. And then they'd all wipe their butts with a common sponge on a stick.

But then that was before Big Toilet Paper.

This is a type of ad hominem fallacy because you're downvoting based on something about the speaker that is unrelated to the argument. You might argue that there is a correlation between the misspellings and logical fallacies, but you offer no evidence, and the fact that you committed this phallusy while spelling everything correctly speaks otherwise.

A sword by definition has a "pointed blade" accordingly any object with an infinitely long blade cannot be a sword. Rather, it's a blade ray.

Obviously, solar energy is going to continue to grow. Less obviously, this will have a pretty significant effect on global economics. Countries that previously lacked domestic energy production now will suddenly have it. Countries highly reliant on fossil fuel exports will suddenly be less important. I think this will probably be the most significant change and it'll be for the better. Obviously global warming problems are on the horizon but over 5-10 years from now it'll still be comparatively small.

I personally don't see AI getting much better than it is now because it's starting to run out of how much it can do with existing data. It'll continue to be a useful tool for autocomplete and generating low-effort content, but otherwise won't rearrange society or build us dyson spheres or anything like some seem to expect. I don't see software technology doing anything especially great for a while and its role in the economy may shrink for the first time really since it started.

More speculatively, I'd guess we'll see more advancements in DNA and RNA technology that will make medicine more resemble programming rather than throwing stuff at the body and hoping it works. This will progress slowly, but in 5-10 years I think we'll be looking at some vaguely significant impact on common health problems. Other medical tech will be significant too - knowing someone who takes GLP-1s I think we've kind of missed celebrating how big a deal that is for some people.

Society as a whole - who knows, that's especially hard to predict. I tend to be optimistic that the current reactionary period will fade, having already used up its credibility. I worry though that we're getting better at exploiting human emotions and that can be used by the powerful to control masses. But when has that ever not been a factor? We've only relatively recently emerged from the era of divinely ordained kings, and mass literacy is still quite new in the grand scheme of things. Our society will continue to evolve, a bit inconsistently.

For me WFH has helped me have a community. The office was never a real community, and the fact that we all worked together got in the way of being actual friends. Instead with the added time from WFH I was able to prioritize my social life and go to more events and meet people I actually have stuff in common with. Additionally my in-office job forced me to live in a dead suburb, WFH allowed me to move to a city with a lot more social opportunities.

Of course probably not everyone prioritized that. The office might be good for some people, but for people like me who don't necessarily socialize at the office very easily WFH is much better for community.

At least it's not driving straight into a tree, I call that an improvement.

Be careful with the hot water. A friend cracked his toilet that way.

There's a lot of assumptions in saying it's just meaningless chemicals

• That chemicals are meaningless and lacking intriniic value. Seen from the outside they may appear that way, but evidently from the inside it seems quite different.
• "We" are not some other unseen brain behavior (not a crazy idea since we've never seen consciousness working in the brain)
• We are within the brain
• The brain exists at all
• Any knowledge exists at all (dubious as Mickey points out)

Quite the opposite, or so the Germans would have us believe:

I die with a happy heart, aware of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our soldiers at the front, our women at home, the achievements of our farmers and workers and the work, unique in history, of our youth who bear my name.

And you'll never guess who he blamed for starting the war.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/My_Political_Testament