Got a board a year ago and love it, a friend tried it once and bought a board too. I'm tempted to get one delivered to my parents and in-laws, so we can all play when I go out to visit. It's so simple to teach, and yet there's a ton of room for improving simply by playing. Any time we have people over, the board eventually comes down off the wall, and the first-timers get a quick lesson.

The questions are meant to be asked of yourself, unless I'm mistaken. So I'm not really sure what you mean about "the person who asked it".

I would speculate that the point of the question is that "diversity", in the corporate world, has some very specific meaning, and in my experience, it doesn't include these categories. My own employer does a lot of lip service to how important it is to have people from diverse backgrounds, and yet, somehow that seems to translate to "young people from many different ethnic groups who all lean liberal, have never mentioned their faith in the time I've known them, and have degrees".

I think you are right. I was looking at it through the lens of potential “now do you have any questions” type questions, like in an interview, as some of the other comments here have mentioned. But that isn’t mentioned in the article. They are probably just for introspection that sort of question makes more sense.

(OP) Correct. The first couple sentences stress this, the questions are just mini thought experiments. Not an assertion of anything. Have fun with them, don't belabor them. If all or none of the questions aren't your cup of tea, who cares.

Yeah right. Your concern that massively overrepresented groups might be overlooked while underrepresented groups are emphasized is just a bit of fun.

It's a fun position to be in where whether you get a job or not is just a thought experiment.

You're still not getting it.

The thought experiment regarding diversity challenges the (typically) inconsistent implementation of it where it's more like a candy story where you pick what you like (or deem socially acceptable) and dismiss or even discourage anything else. That's not true diversity. It's equity.

Similarly, as you suggest that representation matters, and if you'd consistently believe that, then we should immediately reallocate a huge amount of women to do the shittiest, riskiest, lowest paid jobs that men currently do. Likewise, we should immediately deploy a huge amount of men in female-dominated professions, like HR, psychology, the like.

I bet quite a few would now lose their appetite for "representation". We might as well just stop pretending and admit that we have no principles or beliefs, we just want whatever is best for us or our "group", whatever that means.

Part of that is a reflection of the American population! America is increasingly ethnically diverse and irreligious.

If you think that separating the two wasn't an intentional move to allow for one to pass but not the other, I've got a bridge to sell you. Congress combines unrelated items all the time, if they had to vote to prevent the strike, the compliance with some of their demands should have been rolled into the same vote if they cared about it being passed.

Okay, say you're Joe Biden, or some prominent Democrat in office.

Republicans come to you and say: either we pass this bill without safety provisions, or we will gleefully destroy the entire economy and the public will blame you for it.

What do you do?

You start by having the balls to say no. Then you hold a till-they-drop press conference explaining exactly why you're saying no and who is actually to blame for what is about to happen.

If the American people still decide to blame you and elect one of the saboteurs instead, well, they get what they deserve.

...I have learned that I have an above average capacity for spite, though.

> If the American people still decide to blame you and elect one of the saboteurs instead, well, they get what they deserve.

Have you been paying attention since 2010? That is exactly what is happening. Republicans break government, say government is broken, then win elections with votes from people who are harmed by government disfunction.

That's been the case since long before 2010, and democrats still manage to win elections, so I don't think your theory holds outside of certain areas of the country that likely have other systemic reasons for republicans being elected.

Besides which, I can't say we aren't getting what we deserve.

It really shouldn't be THAT hard to hold press conferences and/or put out media releases that actually contain the text of the legislation and the specific areas of objection.

Section J, paragraph 2 indicates "blah foo bar".

The people seeking to pass this bill are trying to "bar" your "blah foo", and I don't believe "bar" should be "blah foo'd". "Bar" should be "bazzed", and I'm doing everything I can to 'baz' 'bars' whenever possible.

I realize that sometimes legislative language is dense or difficult, but that shouldn't be a reason to gloss over it.

I got hung up on the Clinton Health Care act in the early 90s. Right wing radio folks got me hung up on it - I was convinced it was evil. I bought a copy to review in detail. It was complex, but I found that many of the radio talking points I'd eaten up were, in fact, misrepresentations or distortions. But... I had to read the text myself to get to that point - it took a while to digest.

Yeah but the problem is that half of the country explicitly DOESN'T get their information from anyone but Fox news, or worse like newsmax, or more specifically, Tucker Carlson and friends who officially claim their shows, on the "Fox News" channel, can not be considered reality by anyone "reasonable" so they aren't legally liable for the horseshit they spew.

Half the country will see "Democrats are the reason the nation is on fire right now" and believe it without an uncritical thought, and go back to facebook to repost memes about furry kids using litter boxes at school, or LBGTQ people trying to groom your kids to be child porn stars, and also uncritically believe that as well.

Half of the country reads below a high school level. You really think they will accurately be able to understand a legalese filled and often purposely confusing, 10 page document that usually has dense references to other legalese filled documents?

...and they'll still believe that even if the country isn't on fire because Fox News will make up a fire and tell them it is because of the left anyway. Fox News indoctrinating people isn't a variable that Biden's actions actually changes in any meaningful way.

Refuse to play their bullshit game and do the right thing instead.

Are you seriously suggesting that an economic depression would have no effect on the country's politics?

I'm saying that even if it does, electing the people who caused it gives the people what they want and deserve.

Repubicans do not play fair and they do not care about anything but their own power. You have two options: play their game, which means they win, or refuse to play their game and call them out on their bullshit, which means they might win, but if they do then it will be because the public has been shown the truth and just doesn't care.

Obama made the mistake of playing their game a lot in his first term: assuming that republicans actually give a shit about the country and pre-emptively offering reasonable compromise. The republicans, of course, refused to compromise at all and still claimed he was a socialist tyrant.

What I'm saying is, do not negotiate with terrorists.

Not sign it.

"They used to come up and rub my leg hair. The kids loved to rub my legs."

Exactly this. For a couple of years, I was onboard with streaming. It was convenient and frictionless. But now I find myself having to search google to find out which service a movie/show is on, only to find its on none of the ones I have. I pay for Hulu, share my inlaws Netflix account, and I have Amazon Prime. If whatever I want isn't readily available on one of those, I immediately just pirate it and put it on my Plex server (and my backup drive), where I'll always have access to it.

Gabe Newell put forward his thoughts on piracy and the success of Steam as a digital content platform about a decade ago now, saying “The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. ... It's by giving those people a service that's better than what they're receiving from the pirates.” And for a couple of years, I think streaming services achieved that. Netflix and Hulu really did seem to capture the market in paid services because they were so convenient. But as the market fractures into smaller and smaller services, I think a lot of people are going to turn back to piracy.

Now epic is ruining gaming platforms. Was fine with origin, steam, Battle.net. Now I don’t want to buy anything cos worried epic will go bribe the game to remove it from other platforms. In favor of its own turd service.

Not getting into the rest of it, but the reason the "pinch to zoom" discussion is important is that the piece of video they are attempting to zoom in on is the one the prosecution's final gambit hinges on. As the self-defense evidence has stacked up, the prosecution has attempted to make the case that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum's attack by pointing his gun at him. Despite the pile of video evidence available of the evening, no other evidence or testimony corroborates this claim, and in the (allegedly critical) video evidence they want to zoom in on, Rittenhouse is about 15 pixels tall. In that scenario, the specifics of how zooming will affect the video are pretty critical.

There's another discussion to be had about wether the provocation element was introduced in good faith, or as an attempt to allow the jury to introduce their own opinions on wether his presence or his open carry were inherently "provocation", as well, which is thought to be the reason the defense has fought so strongly against the video being permitted (As the video is the only way the prosecution was allowed to introduce the concept of provocation into the jury instructions at all).

I believe you can add "suggest_activity_tweet" to your muted words under Privacy and Safety. I'm fairly certain this still works.

"So obviously in that case there was foul play."

Correct, and the events that user described is exactly what happened to Jeffery Epstein, and yet somehow we have no public information about who is responsible, and the official story is suicide.

They already tried, it flopped and they killed off the feature. PC gamers already own games through Steam, no one wants to have to split their library if they can avoid it.

Right-click the server icon, select "notifications settings", press "Mute <server name>". When it asks how long, select "until I turn it back on". This will kill the white dot unless you're mentioned (or @everyone'd). Its a little tricky to find but that will solve your issue

You can also turn off @everyone/@here/@username in right-click -> notification settings -> 'Suppress @everyone and @here'. Like the sibling said, doing this for every channel is tedious.

I want to change my global settings, not server settings. I'm on dozens of Discords and join/leave them and change their order on the sidebar all the time. Going through each of them (and remembering to do it every time I join a new one) sounds like a nightmare. Every time I hear/see a notification that I don't want, I'd have to go through all those dialogs for all of my servers? Nope, not gonna happen.

From your original comment I assumed you actually would want to know how to do it, I see now it was simply whining.

edit: sorry, this came off more aggressive than I intended. I just meant that I thought you were looking for a solution, but you were actually critiquing, so I felt like I'd wasted the time trying to help. Sorry to be an ass.

I was replying to a post that praised Discords UX. I agree, it's mostly excellent, but there are points that deserve critique, which prompted this response.

If you feel like that's whining, well, as an UX designer I'd welcome feedback on what could be improved.