What about it, for curiosity's sake? Is it the fumes? The crazyness of literally going so fast as to barely retain control in tons of metal? Or for things like motorbikes, doing all that without tons of metal for a modicum of protection? lol
I love motorsports, but no matter the power source, the extreme stuff kinda' takes having a screw or two loose...
It wouldn't be part of the systemic fixes, no, but it would be part of the emotional healing that we all need.
Neither are executive pay packages. In fact, they harm A LOT more people than one rich prick... So defend them if you want, but know that in doing so, you defend the very problem.
Nope, you've already explained how you are too stupid. Do better. Stop being a heartless moron. Being a hypocrite for a good reason is good. The fact you disagree is beyond pathetic. Sad.
financially*
Being right and good is far, far, FAR better than the simple act of not being a hypocrite...
I'd MUCH rather someone be a "hypocrite" by deciding to do good things later, than by being a hypocrite for wanting to do bad things...
If you disagree, your morals are beyond fucked up.
IMO, "One app/library/etc does one thing only" is a rather ignorant form of wisdom about encapsulation, anyways.
Encapsulation is important regardless of how many disparate tasks a library handles. Doing one thing with one thing is a pretty good rule of thumb to get close to good results, but it is FAR from a golden standard, and serves to drag people away from the finer nuances of encapsulation.
The ONLY time it is a hard and fast rule is at the individual function level. A single function ideally should have one task to accomplish, even if that task has side effects.
I'm sure there are cross-dependency issues on an OS level that makes it a bit wiser to do for widely used system tasks, but to make it an absolute rule smacks of wisdom gone awry. Like not eating shellfish in the bible.
That makes precisely ZERO of it OK.
Nah, suits don't deserve the dignity of a painless existence. They made their choice to be a soulless husk, and that's how they should be treated.
Parents who buy their children guns at all need to all be evaluated. There is seriously something wrong with giving children something whos intended purpose is delivering lethal force.
Wasn't Play Boy rather progressive at all times? What's the broken clock?
I really hate peoples' misconstruing of attraction with objectification. The presence of nudity doesn't make something bad, exploitative, or wrong. The presence of someone attractive does not mean that is the entire point.
So... things not actually restricted to internal combustion engines? That sounds... rather petty and foolish.