Yes! Great point. If you find any other book that you really like (Mending being a perfect example)… keep the librarian… find a new villager, and start the process over.

If you find a villager with no job. Trap it. Place a lectern next to it. It becomes a librarian. Check what it sells. Silk touch? Nope. Break the lectern, the villager reverts to not a librarian. Villagers only keep their jobs if you have bought something from them. Replace the lectern, check (it now has new items for sale), break, rinse and repeat. Once you find it, buy it and the librarian will be locked to always sell it.

Only downside is you need emeralds. But on the upside, you get infinite silk touch.

Not the poster’s fault that Qualcomm has ridiculous chip names these days

That didn’t take long.

You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”

Debian aims for rock solid stability

To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).

So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”

Written by someone with little understanding of the requisite material

The requisite material for the topic at hand is “dating a person who clearly thought there are implied social contracts at play, and attempting to make it work out anyway”

OP is asking about “How do I fit into society?” not “How should society function?”

I agree with you that a lot of implied social contracts are bullshit. But also they exist. Until you have had that talk together to figure out the relationship, there has to be some assumptions. People don’t always have deep “what is this relationship” 2 minutes into the first date. Assumptions are not always bad.

Your stance is that the assumption is “I have no obligations until I’ve agreed to them.” This is itself merely an assumption to make and not just “fact” of some sort. The vast majority of society has the assumption of “The relationship IS an obligation to some degree based on context.” I’m not saying which assumption is “right,” I’m just saying how it works for most people.

If I’m in a relationship where I’m committed enough to refer to the other person as “my partner” then I’m going to err on the side of not hurting them, regardless of who is to blame. If I can prevent the other person from being hurt just by working along with their assumptions until we can have a conversation where we make things explicit and there are no more assumptions, then why wouldn’t I do that, unless “being right” is more important than my partner.

if you didn’t commit to spending the entire evening with her on her birthday

Bad news. This is sound logic, but in NT world, there are all sorts of implied social contracts. Dating someone defaults to “yes you DID commit to spending the evening with her on her birthday, unless otherwise discussed to opt out”.

Not everything needs to be spoken or written down. If I walk into a restaurant but there is no sign that says “please form a line to place your order,” I’m not going to barge to the front and begin ordering, because “form a line and wait your turn” is understood to be how society functions.

You are absolutely not obligated to follow the implied social contracts. And you not obligated to know all of the implied social contracts. But you also don’t get to take the moral high ground on the situation.

she doesn’t have a right to blame you for her hurt

A healthy relationship doesn’t have blame or a scoreboard or anything like that. It REALLY doesn’t matter who is to blame. Try to win an argument by saying “Well you dont have the right to blame me.” It will end more relationships than it will win arguments. If you value the relationship, you want your partner to not hurt regardless of the source/blame. The hurt happened and all you can do is figure out how to prevent the hurt going forward, which will often be by communicating and setting expectations.

Just inviting them to come with isn’t fair to your friend that wanted to hang out with you… You can always make plans with your partner on another day

Or you can make plans with your friend on another day. it is generally considered the “socially acceptable” thing to prioritize someone on special days like birthdays. Even if you have only give a bit more priority on someone’s birthday, I would think that a partner already has enough extra priority that “I will spend time with only you” is not an unreasonable request. It’s also not clear how long OP has been in this relationship. Based on the miscommunications, probably not long. If it’s a serious relationship, then giving your partner extra priority sends the message that you find the relationship serious. Otherwise the message is “you are a priority person in my life and this is a priority day for you, but this other person is even higher priority still.”

Asking them how they feel about you going … understand that you should be able to go do things with your friends and you shouldn’t have to ask permission.

If you ask someone how they feel, and express they would be hurt, but you do the thing anyway, then you are saying that you don’t care if you hurt them, and “Well i didnt know it would hurt you” is now a lie. Your options are to either not hurt them (by talking through the situation until it doesn’t hurt them, or simply not doing the thing), or hurt them. But if you hurt them willingly, you are the one doing damage to your relationship. If you don’t think they are being reasonable, then you may be in a toxic relationship and should end it. If you just don’t care about their feelings, then you are definitely in a bad relationship and should end it. Asking isn’t about “permission”, it is about communicating that you value their input and their feelings.

Life is complicated, so “priority” doesn’t mean that something is the only thing that matters but it does mean that it should factor into your decision making.

Hopefully “we’re still trying to learn what’s best for PC” isn’t some sort of code for “PC players are too whiny and won’t bend the knee, this weekend was bad PR that wasnt worth it. we just won’t release future games on PC”

A spectrum is usually drawn similar to the one on the left. But the point of a spectrum is that its not “where on the spectrum are you”… It is not one point on the spectrum. As drawn on the left, the spectrum represents possibilities. Normally a spectrum would be drawn to indicate how much of each possibility a thing covers.

Eg, the spectrum for light emission of a lamp might be :

Which means it has a bit varying of every color but is heavily green and orange, but probably looks just like white to the naked eye. Swap “green” for “language” etc and you have a spectrum.

Its enough for me too. But not everyone has the same use case and environment. I definitely see why someone would want this.

What I disagree with is that it needs to communicate to the internet to do this. It adds delay and potential for outage if your internet is out. But they do this so they can force you to get their app and milk you for extra data to sell. Internet capable smart devices are to harvest data not grant features. Features could be done better by ZigBee and a hub, but that doesnt grant the device a way to phone home

Oh good, if that is all true, you wont have to change anything to be compliant with new laws and should have no issue with them.

I still find it super weird. A (remote) coworker bought an ioniq 5 after 9 months on a wait list… 3 months later, I went to a dealership. they had one on the lot (3 actually). Was able to get one with 0 wait.

Looking at their website, they have 4 2024 ioniq 5s available right now, an SEL, SE, and 2x Limited.

So apparently my local dealership is the sweet spot. Or is this purely a Canada vs US thing?

I prefer chain texts when I am engaging in a conversation. It feels more like natural conversation. As a sentence is out of my brain, the recipient has it. Sometimes the thoughts are fully organized, there’s just a linebreak between them, and it’s just a formatting distinction. But there are differences between “sending a text message to relay information” and “having a conversation via SMS”

The obnoxious part is the constant vibrate/beep per incoming message, but Android has a “minimum time between notification sounds” config option though, I imagine Apple does too, so that has never really bothered me either.

Mine doesn’t seem to have much dust in it (I don’t usually keep it in a pocket) and it seems like the cable seats all the way, but more of a situation where the metal housing is bent so doesn’t grip the cable properly. 🤷

Edit: well ill be… I got a needle in there. Very little came out. Cable seats in what looks like the exact same depth as before, but now it holds the cable better. Mind blown. Apparently 0.1mm worth of dirt is all it takes

Same. The USB port struggles to retain the cable sometimes, but this phone has kept me happy for a very long time.

I wonder what it would take to just repair the USB port.

Confidence doesn’t mean that you stand by a decision if others disagree. That’s being stubborn. If people have valid points you hadn’t considered when they try to convince you, you shouldn’t just stick to your decision. If the counterargument is just “really? are you sure?” you shouldn’t just give in. But if the counterargument is “really? did you account for X?” (and you hadn’t, and X is important), then you might suddenly want to rethink the situation.

Confidence is more like an approximation for: on a scale of 1-100, how sure are you? If your answer is 75 or higher… just say 100. If your answer is 50-75… just say 75, and highlight key things you are still very not confident about. If it’s lower than that, just say 0. “This will help you understand confidence” vs “This is generally how confidence works, the numbers might be a bit off, or the exact details aren’t right, but it gets you most of the way there.” vs “I have no idea what confidence is”.

The key is not about how confident you actually are, but how others perceive your confidence. And in that regard, different situations call for different levels of confidence. A doctor doing brain surgeon shouldn’t just go cutting through things at a 78 confidence level. But when deciding on what to have for lunch, “I dunno, tacos?” is fine even if you’re only 23 confidence that you actually want tacos.

There are jobs out there that basically exist in the 50-75 confidence range. But you have to be able to articulate your lack of confidence and propose remedies. “Are we ready for the product launch Monday?” “No, I’m still concerned that we haven’t addressed X”. Some companies are very risk averse, and if your lack of confidence in success is because of confidence in the existence of risks (which you have to be able to convey to be helpful).

You have to figure out what level of confidence youre supposed to have in a situation (accounting for negative consequences of being wrong), and then give your answer. But to further complicate things, sometimes “give your answer” means answering “are you sure?” and sometimes it means presenting yourself in a way that implies that you are sure. Social interactions are weird.