Judging by the heatmap, it appears the author isn't familiar with Vim's c verb.
It works just like d, except it puts you in insert mode after you've completed your command.
For example, to replace the text within a set of quotation marks with You don't like Vim?, move your cursor on or within those quotation marks and use:
ci"You don't like Vim?<esc>
To replace the text up to (but not including) the next exclamation point with I would never drink orange juice, use:
ct!I would never drink orange juice<esc>
EDIT: Gah. He explicitly mentioned his use of cib. I'll leave this here in case it helps anyone.
> "If I claim I'm a victim in a way that you're not, it becomes literally impossible for you to prove me wrong."
> This is a very ungenerous reading. (Ungenerous readings are very common in 'discussions' like this, on both sides.)
I think you're misunderstanding me, because you the rest of your post precisely describes what I'm talking about (up until the final paragraph, which I'll get to later).
If I claim that I'm a victim in a way that you're not, it means that there must (in some way) be quantifiable categorical differences between us. Otherwise, of course, we'd both be victims.
For example, we could have different different cities of birth, different ages, different ethnicities, different religions, different specific houses of worship, different visual appearances, different heights, different friends, different incomes, different hobbies, different offices, different voice pitches, different teachers, different childhood fears, different parents, etc. We could be different people with different brain chemistries and different life experiences. So even if we are at the same table together at the same restaurant, you could not tell me how I experienced the waiter speaking to us.
And you could not judge how I experience being told, "You are not allowed to reason with a woman when she claims victimhood on the basis of her sex. You are not allowed to point out any problematic aspects of her claims. You are not allowed to say that you as a man are equally affected by the phenomenon she is describing. She knows that you are wrong. Somehow."?
> But isn't it even more patronizing for men to come in and say that she has no basis to make that claim?
No, it's not patronizing at all disagree with a woman and explain why.
> And that sounds uncomfortably like we're saying to women: you can't disagree. You can't do anything other than supplicate.
Saying to women "we are allowed to disagree and reason with you" is completely different from saying to women "you aren't allowed to disagree and reason with us".
Yikes. You "empathetic" activists are consistently some of the meanest, most cruel people in every discussion you wander into. Do you not see how needlessly demeaning and insulting you are? It's remarkable that you cling to the banner of "empathy" while hatred and condescension drips from every word.
And yes, the grandparent poster did say that if you're on the Geek-Feminism-Privileged™ side of a given issue, you have a "vanishingly small" chance of being right, so "you're better off holding your tongue".
You're fighting to create a world in which the intellectual currency is not reason, evidence, or logic; it's self-proclaimed victimhood.
If I claim I'm a victim in a way that you're not, it becomes literally impossible for you to prove me wrong. If I go on to claim that we need new policies to protect me from (and/or compensate me for) that victimhood, you can't disagree. You can't do anything other than supplicate.
> > If women tend to be intimidated by head-to-head competition (of any type) with a man, it doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral for a man to compete head-to-head with a woman.
> Err, it sure is when men have an obvious advantage. This is why we don't allow men to play in the WNBA. When men don't have an obvious advantage (e.g. competing for grades in class), you're absolutely right. Men definitely have an advantage in tech right now. You can argue whether that's innate or cultural, but it's kinda hard to argue the premise.
It's immoral for a man to compete in the WNBA because the league disallows it. Not because there's something cosmically immoral about men and women competing in general, and not because there's something cosmically immoral about competing with someone who feels intimidated because you're more skilled than they are.
Is there anything immoral or wrong about a more intelligent person competing against a less intelligent person for a job? Nope.
> > If women tend to be intimidated when a muscular male stranger is in their presence, it doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral to be a muscular man in the presence of a woman.
> Your actions are immoral, your mere existence never is. It's about empathy. No one's ever going to say you're wrong for being a muscular man, but people will think you're either insensitive or super oblivious if you're a huge guy wearing a hoodie walking 6 inches behind a small 105 pound woman at night in an alley.
Sure, invading someone's personal space is wrong. That's not at all relevant. If I stormed into a women-only school, that's bad.
However, if a woman enters a public (or private!) space and demands men leave because she feels intimidated, that's wrong, too. And for different (and more relevant) reasons.
> > Likewise, if women tend to be intimidated when men use language that expresses pride in their manhood, it doesn't mean it's wrong for boys or men to use language that expresses pride in their manhood.
> Come on: first of all replace "man/men" with "white" and see why your statement sounds a little ridiculous.
There's nothing wrong with being proud of being Jewish, White, or Asian, despite those being historically successful groups.
Yes, young Whites are shamed for expressing the same pride that everyone else gets to express, and that is precisely what forces "White pride" organization underground, turning them into seething pits of Hell like Stormfront.
> Second of all, no one wants to hear that shit either way. If I have to listen to a group of women talk about how great it is to be a woman, I'm similarly going to either leave the conversation or say "what the fuck?". Wouldn't you?
That shit gets old real fast if you're on the outer circle.
Sure, it'd get old. But that doesn't mean women should be shamed for talking about how great it is to be a woman. Let them be proud of who they are. Leave if you want; ignore it if you can't.
> > To all the boys and young men who are barraged daily with messages scolding them (or worse) for using language that implies they're male: Keep your chin up. These people want to break you down, not lift anyone else up.
> Truthfully, nobody really gives a shit what anyone has to say. It's more about who you say it around. If you wanna jibber-jabber about the stock market and 401Ks with your bros, then go nuts. Maybe keep that talk to a minimum when you're around the guy making $8.50 an hour though, you know?
Does the fact that a guy making $8.50 an hour might have an internet connection mean that you can't jibber-jabber about the stock market (or about buying yachts) online?
As a society, we need to get over the chivalrous notion that something is automatically bad if it might trigger negative emotions in women.
If women tend to be intimidated by head-to-head competition (of any type) with a man, it doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral for a man to compete head-to-head with a woman.
If women tend to be intimidated when a muscular male stranger is in their presence, it doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral to be a muscular man in the presence of a woman.
Likewise, if women tend to be intimidated when men use language that expresses pride in their manhood, it doesn't mean it's wrong for boys or men to use language that expresses pride in their manhood.
To all the boys and young men who are barraged daily with messages scolding them (or worse) for using language that implies they're male: Don't let them convince you that your existence itself is an act of oppression that you must actively fight against.
The notion of "original sin" is a frightening. Sadly, among certain activist groups, it's back in style.
I have never seen "Git" written in all-caps, and I've seen no real indication that it's an acronym.
It looks like you may have stumbled upon this already, but according to Wikipedia, Linus said the following about Git's name:
> Torvalds has quipped about the name git, which is British English slang roughly equivalent to "unpleasant person". Torvalds said: "I'm an egotistical bastard, and I name all my projects after myself. First 'Linux', now 'git'." The man page describes git as "the stupid content tracker".
Whenever a woman is criticized in a remotely harsh tone, you will find men who instinctively rush to her aid. Men who will pat her on the head, compliment her, and apologize on behalf of everyone.
Don't blame women for this phenomenon (and I'm not saying you are); blame those men who view women as fragile children in need of protection.
It looks like you've spent the last few months ignoring all but the worst arguments against your position. That sort of insularity doesn't help you understand the other side.
> I mean, do these guys think that they are such brilliant thinkers that they are the first ever to try apply symmetry to an asymmetrical context?
You need to read more charitably, because I can safely say that everyone recognizes the asymmetry.
There are a couple of issues here, the first of which is that contextual asymmetry doesn't always matter.
One example:
Sarah and Amy walk up to John and Christopher on the playground at school. John is enjoying a strawberry ice cream cone.
The two girls slap Christopher, who retaliates by slapping them both back. John, ice cream cone still in hand, yells for the teacher to come over.
"Christopher!", scolds the teacher, "Slapping is wrong! Come to the office with me."
"But Sarah and Amy slapped me first! Why aren't they getting in trouble?"
"Because John has an ice cream cone, and you're both boys."
Second, some of the asymmetry in this context is actually inconvenient for your position.
A few examples:
1. Society is far more sensitive to the plight of girls than to the plight of boys. As such, it's often politically unfeasible to ever reverse a program that elevates girls at the expense of boys. For instance, there are still far more scholarships available to girls than are available to boys, despite the fact that women have outnumbered men in college for decades.
2. Boys and men are less risk-averse than girls and women, and as a result, they find themselves more numerous at both the top and the bottom of society. Programs that ignore the men not at the top of society, in favor of elevating women toward the top, end up hurting disadvantaged men.
3. STEM jobs are perhaps the only good realistic job prospect for young boys today. Programs that whisk girls ahead of boys for STEM jobs end up leaving those boys with nowhere to turn, because there is insufficient (not non-existent) political pressure to open up other opportunities for them (as point #1 above demonstrated).
I cannot imagine mustering any offense toward a group of people for spending their own money to organize a conference about a topic that interests them. None.
Good for them for doing something they're passionate about.
There is of course a genuine (world-wide) problem they're trying to solve. As Paul Graham himself has written:
> I also think girls are less likely to become nerds than boys of equal intelligence, possibly because they’re more sensitive to social pressures. In my school, at least, girls made more of an effort to conform than boys.
If this conference could encourage girls to take risks (socially and financially) rather than go with the flow, that would be huge and extremely positive.
In a society that is far more sensitive to girls' needs than boys' needs, however, I do fear that conferences like this further marginalize disadvantaged boys (of all races). The overwhelming majority of boys do not go on to start startups, nor do the overwhelming majority of boys think they have a realistic shot. We all do a great job of completely ignoring those boys' needs, assuring ourselves that "nearly every senator and billionaire tech founder is a man, so boys will end up doing just fine".
It might be time for people to start catering conferences toward this growing, ignored group of young people.
Of course, that is NOT YC's responsibility. Just because they want to work on one issue doesn't mean they're morally obligated to work on another.
I hope this conference goes well for everyone involved.
Is there a functional difference between putting...
set editing-mode vi
... in one's inputrc and...
set -o vi
... in one's .bashrc?
I realize that .inputrc is the config file for Readline, and .bashrc is essentially a start-up file for Bash. But is it ever necessary to use both snippets?
I'm not sure why, but natermer's past several posts are all dead.
He wrote:
> The people running the government, which uses the taxes to secure loans that they have no intention on paying back, in order to prop up a failing economy that is failing because of the rules and regulations that are setup to maximize the illigit profit for said people running government.. those are the real gangsters.
> Most large state governments amount to little more then just legalized mafias. Ran by political and family dynasties serving the purposes of whoever is capable of providing them the most money and power.
> IMHO, paying as little taxes as possible is a moral imperative.
Regarding "3.1415", I was simply passive-aggressively pointing out that if you're referencing pi, you should probably round up to "3.1416". The example itself made sense!
Actually—I think you did explain properly. I must confess that I jumped into the sandbox before reading the documentation, and then I only checked the documentation when ran into behavior I didn't expect.
I do think the semicolon behavior is a bit confusing. The documentation explains that expressions aren't auto-returned if they're followed by a semicolon, but I don't think that quite covers the behavior I pointed out. I might be missing something else from the documentation, though...
Also, I found one more major issue. Your documentation uses the numeric literal "3.1415" in the explanation for named parameters. That really needs to be "3.1416". :P
It works just like d, except it puts you in insert mode after you've completed your command.
For example, to replace the text within a set of quotation marks with You don't like Vim?, move your cursor on or within those quotation marks and use:
To replace the text up to (but not including) the next exclamation point with I would never drink orange juice, use:
EDIT: Gah. He explicitly mentioned his use of cib. I'll leave this here in case it helps anyone.