TheHarpyEagle

Ah sorry, I meant using Vim in a GUI program. I wanted something with the flexibility of a mouse (quick navigation, context menu actions, etc.) without using a mouse. Using just the arrow keys, shift highlighting, etc. is just too slow when writing lots of text, and it doesn’t follow the natural position of typing.

I dunno, I feel like anyone drawn to Lemmy for that reason will find lemmy.ml nearly as easily. If world suffers because of bad practices, well, that’s the way it goes. At least the fediverse lives on.

I mean, “bad” in this case is completely subjective. There are large trans communities on other instances (blahaj being the most obvious one) and they have their reasons for defederating from Hexbear.

Meh, that’s kind of the point, no? Seems like it would be more jarring to only federate at the community level, as you either a) still have to interact with people from the unwanted instance or b) deal with randomly hidden comments from that instance. If the community dies because it’s on an unpopular instance, well, that’s the way it goes. Can always start up/join a community on another instance that’s federated with yours.

I actually use VIM bindings in PyCharm, slightly cursed but actually works really well and meshes fairly nicely with the other IDE shortcuts. Being able to use it in any terminal is a nice bonus.

I honestly learned it just because I hated having to change hand position to use a mouse.

I don’t understand how it fits. They’re not cutting off their relationship to the protective parent (the mother), which is what the new restrictions prohibit. She still has access and custody, but they are also required to attend reunification therapy. Where is the contradiction?

It’s also explained why the abuse investigation does not impact the ordered therapy.

Though the divorce judge found there was evidence that Hawkins had physically abused the oldest son, the judge said in his ruling that was “one instance that does not involve either of the two children at issue.”

The father is only seeking custody of the two youngest sons, who were, as far as the court is aware, not abused by their father. So the judge does not see this or the seven charges of abuse of a minor as relevant in this case.

I’m all for being aware of the quality and reputation of a paper, but it seems you are putting more weight on that then the quality of the article itself. You are pointing at supposed inconsistencies that seem to be explained by the article.

I mean the article explains it pretty clearly.

The new law barred courts from restricting the custody of a parent who is competent, protective and not abusive solely to improve a relationship with the other parent. It prohibits reunification treatment that is predicated on cutting off the relationship between a child and a protective parent the child has a bond with.

Putting aside the insanity of this ever being allowed, it doesn’t apply in this case because custody has not been (officially) cut off. She’s in jail because she objects to the therapist and her methods, believing them to cause severe anxiety in her children, and has thus tried to interfere with the court ordered sessions.

Seriously, the courts are heaping all of this blame on the mother when the kids repeatedly report physical and sexual abuse by their father.

Though the divorce judge found there was evidence that Hawkins had physically abused the oldest son, the judge said in his ruling that was “one instance that does not involve either of the two children at issue.”

Insane. The logic is nonexistent.

The “faith based therapy” thing make everything make a whole lot more sense…

Oh wow, haven’t watched Beer and Board Games in a while!

“Even though the scene feels nice for future bridal couples, we can’t disregard what it symbolises: a father handing over a minor virgin to her new guardian.”

This seems like a silly thing to get hung up on when the bride isn’t a minor (and perhaps not a woman) and can choose who they walk down the aisle with. The article even mentions that some choose to walk with their mother, and likely there are others who walk with other important friends or family members. I’ve never cared too much about wedding ceremonies, but I know that walking down the aisle can be a really important and symbolic thing for the bride and the person they walk with. Seems like taking that choice away is more restrictive to women than, you know, letting the woman decide for herself.

Yeah, if someone at the table wants certain attributes for their character, the DM should not allow others to mess with that without very good reason. This guy being a dick about it? He can find another table.

Oh man! Excited for this, never played the original but played a lot of Croc 2 growing up.

I dunno if scaring people off of their instance’s communities is a deliberate attempt at building an echo chamber or just genuine dumbassery.

Honestly thank god the Lemmy devs made a platform that makes it so easy to avoid them.

The Wayback Machine shows it was missing at one point.

http://web.archive.org/web/20240829000336/https://discuss.python.org/t/should-we-consider-ranked-choice-voting-for-sc-elections/61880/

Hard to say why exactly it was hidden, but it’s a bad look for sure.

I think that’s a little too simplistic. I definitely agree that “we can’t show you the evidence of why we made this decision but trust us” isn’t going to instill confidence in the community, but it’s not like the steering council is some unrelated board of executives. They’re all core developers, theoretically chosen for their dedication and contributions to Python as a whole, and it seems their granted power has made them anxious about showing favoritism among the most seasoned at the expense of upholding the community guidelines that keep the Python community a positive and welcoming place.

I think a flawed decision was made, or at least the way it was presented was flawed, and that should be considered for the next election. Maybe the council does need to be totally overhauled, that’s a valid position. But this is their work, too, and imply they have no skin in the game is disingenuous.

To be honest I still chalk it up to that.

You know, when I read The Handmaid’s Tale back in high school, I didn’t think the ending made any sense. How do you have tourists just walking around taking pictures when there’s horrible human rights violations happening in plain sight?

I think I get it now.

Honestly the accounts of the woman who visited almost bother me more than the men. Even as a tourist she wasn’t allowed to do certain things, but she can just leave whenever she wants. Wonder how her friends among the locals feel about that.

Getting real uncanny valley vibes from those teeth…