An apple blossom
Trembling on a sunlit branch
From the weight of bees.
— Richard Wright
I just talked to Jesus
He said, “What up Yeezus?”
I said “Shit I’m chillin’
Trying to stack these millions.”
— Kanye West (I Am A God)
wan — pale, weak, lacking in enthusiasm
Meaning is systemic
“Connecting up the dots”
— Working something out
— Not just brain farts
“The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths and forming a new thesis.”
git merge [branch]
"Current theory: almost everything awful about working in large organisations could be improved by better internal communications."
— @Leisa (Leisa Reichelt, Digital Transformation Office)
var m = require('mathematics');
var ah = require('art-history');
var dt = require('dog-training');
Don’t Repeat Yourself
stupid, you get a warning for any element you try to make, buttons, icons fonts, etc sure it is useful when you want to make a very simple and unaesthetic page...
What is the HTML for your buttons? And your icon fonts?
Mainly bootstrap HTML.
Never heard of it.
Safe to use in your projects today!
(a) You're coding a button with the wrong element
(b) You're coding a link with the wrong technology
<a href="http://www.google.com" target="_parent"> <button>Click me !</button> </a>
<button type="reset" onclick="location.href="http://www.example.com"> www.example.com</button>
<form> <button formaction="http://stackoverflow.com"> Go to stackoverflow! </button> </form>
Are there any downsides to doing something like the following?
<a href="http://google.com"> <span class="button">label</span> </a>
“I don't think accessibility is something EVERY website should care about, it's a very specific demographic that very few websites should take into account.”
“Very specific demographic”
Make the content as radical as you like. But only the content.
design then develop
deliberate; reason; justify
deliberate; reason; justify
manifesting that cognitive investment
The 1959 Rede Lecture
of scientist and novelist C.P.Snow
Being a hermit
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” — 1 PETER 2:18
The first fallacy does not require an unprovable conclusion in relation to the historical documents of the bible to be expressed. Simply concluding we have no evidence to trust the accuracy of a historical document does not prove we don't. In fact, the inference you draw using parts from the bible is a strawman. I'm guessing you are not interested in understanding the hermeneutical lense in which you have to read historical documents, but from an academic perspective, you don't have the correct meaning. Unless you are willing to do the work and get the correct meaning from the author I'd remove your unproven opinions on the bible.
— A few comments later —
I'll assume, we can end the topic of scholarly hermeneutics and textual criticism. I'm ok moving on to the argument of evil and morality since you brought it up. But I'm thinking you might not be interested in discourse just rhetorical devices. Which is fine. I don't want to cloud the comments of the post with a completely off topic dialogue. But I must suggest, if there is no objective morality what difference does it make if God is even the most evil psychopath ever. It simply doesn't. You can't indirectly claim God is ridiculous and then use an objective morality provided by a God to then show the absurdity of God. That won't logically work.
Who's your favourite Thundercat?
Any of the characters who fought for the Code of Thundera (i.e. an objective set of good standards worth propagating and dying over).
(with apologies to Scotland)