It annoys me that this isn’t just a funny comic. I know some 60+ year old folks who pretty much only talk like that, thinking they’ve eaten wisdom with a spoon, purely based on life experience. Except that they’re not actually saying anything.
Back when I was a toddler and my brother not much older, my parents were visiting relatives across town and so we were home alone for a bit.
I think, I missed my mommy or something. It must have been not enough of an emergency for us to call at our relatives.
Instead, we took the logical not-an-energency step, which is to say many, many steps, because we decided to walk across town to our relatives.
It’s a 20 minute walk with adult feet, so I imagine, it would have taken us at least twice as long.
And so many things could have gone wrong. From us just being barefoot, to someone calling the police, to our parents driving home in the meantime not knowing where we were, to just straight up kidnapping.
But not this time. We just rang at our relatives’ door out of the blue, with our parents still there. 🙃
I have a very unusual workflow. In addition to not stacking windows, I don’t minimize them either. Instead, I spread them out over many workspaces. Per workspace, I usually only have 1 or 2 windows, but I ‘group’ workspaces to keep semantically related windows together.
And I do that, by having all workspaces in a column and just placing windows in neighboring workspaces + leaving workspaces empty between the groupings. I also have a minimap for my workspaces in my panel, to just keep track of all of this.
I like this workflow a lot, because it maps semantics to location. It feels like a desk where you just place related documents next to each other and might place some documents more in the middle, others in a faraway corner.
This is in contrast to the traditional Windows workflow or the workflow that many tiling folks use, where the first workspace is for web browsing etc…
Those use groupings based on the kind of task you do in them (often effectively being tabs in an application), like web browsing. They don’t group by the topic, e.g. you might frantically research ants and use a separate browser window, separate text editor etc., all grouped up for ants.
Now, traditional use of workspaces does allow this grouping by topics, by just assigning each workspace a topic. But personally, I found that too static.
Like, yeah, I have some larger, completely distinct topics, but often I’ll just quickly research bees and that’s kind of ant-related, but doesn’t need to be fully mixed with that either. I’d rather just place it to the side of the ant stuff.
…does actually work wonders. I just had to be forced to do it consistently.
Except I completely missed another factor:
Christmas Eve rolled around, my dad picked me up from the train station. It was just a ten minute drive home, but of course, some asshat had to tailgate us. My dad pretty much just routinely became angry.
Which I get. That shit used to stress me out, too.
But well, used to. I had not experienced that level of stress for multiple months. I felt like some monk, checking in on what the normal people were dealing with.
Well, we don’t tend to do well with a “Why not both?” situation. We tend to select for the bare minimum, egoistic solution. Not having the egoistic solution available could genuinely help us, i.e. force us, to be less stupid about this…
Ah right, yeah, those are crap. I really don’t get why companies are willing to cheap out specifically with keyboards.
Like, it’s the tool your workers use all day. Even if they just type 5% faster on a proper keyboard, that pays for itself in no time.
The TL;DR I was looking for: The beavers help to ‘fight fires’ in the sense that they prevent forests from drying out. Their dams will occasionally cause floodings or streams to diverge, which helps to distribute the water.
I’m not arguing whether anything is wrong with it or not. You could literally be shredding bank notes as a hobby. If it makes you happy, I’m not arguing against.
I’m rather saying someone who’s confident in statistics doesn’t need arguing here. They’ll intrinsically know the chance of winning is effectively 0. As such, they assume that their money will go to charity. But since the lottery company keeps a cut as profit, giving it this way is just worse than giving to charity directly.