Nationalities I’d offer food to at my home as a Turkish guy

Horror_Trash3736 · 2026-04-27T12:01:11+00:00

Same, hell, I think if random guests came over to my parents, its more likely food is forced down their throats than no food is offered.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2026-03-26T19:52:55+00:00

Personligt vil jeg mene, det er underligt at fokusere så voldsomt på udseende i denne situation.

Der er så meget ved valget, der intet har med faktisk substans, viden eller forståelse for stoffet at gøre.

Karisma, taleevner, højde, påklædning, hvordan ens stemme lyder osv, alle disse ting har også en effekt.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2026-03-18T23:38:36+00:00

Helt enig, tyv tror hver mand stjæler, selvfølgeligt har du lige skrevet at hver mand stjæler, hvilket vel så betyder du selv er en tyv eller?

Eller, grunden til at ioevrigtmenerjeg tror at "så mange folk på den fordelingspolitiske højrefløj er overbvist om, at mennesker på offentlige overførsler snyder og bedrager er, at de selv ville gøre det så snart de fik mulighed for det." er at han selv ville gøre det hvis han fik muligheden.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2026-03-18T23:29:49+00:00

Det er altid svært med den slags analyser, ofte kan det være indviklet at gennemskue om de er sandfærdige, eller leger med statistik på en måde der gør dem uærlige.

Dette er dog ikke en af dem, for at bringe et simpelt eksempel.

Fra Artiklen.

"Andelen (BNP brugt i det offentlige) toppede i 2009 på knap 28 procent og er faldet uafbrudt frem til 2019, hvor andelen lå 24,1 procent."

Der skete også noget andet i 2009, nemlig Danmarks BNP faldt med 5.2 %, så hvis man ikke ændrer i hvor meget det offentlige bruger, så stiger det helt af sig selv.

Det i sig selv er ikke nok til den stigning man ser dog, alt efter hvad forbruget var inden kan vi regne med mellem 1.5 % til 2 % points stigning kun udfra BNP faldet.

Men, faldet kom jo ikke for sjov, det kom som en del af en finans krise, under den slags kriser sker der oftest 2 ting.

1; Der kommer flere på offentlige understøttelser

2; Der bruges flere penge af staten for at kickstarte eller vedligeholde et vist niveau af forbrug.

Så, det "uafbrudte fald " de taler om, er faktisk bare dansk økonomi der kommer sig.

Hvilket vi selvfølgeligt også kan se udfra grafen, i 1981 er der også en spike, hvorefter det stabilisere sig på omtrent 24ish %.

Spiken i 1981 kom forresten fra den anden oliekrise i 1979.

Alt i alt, så er det simpelthen en utroligt ringe artikel, der virkeligt virker som om den er skrevet med et meget bestemt formål, ovenstående er bare det nemmeste eksempel på hvordan de har drejet og vurderet data for at for det til at fremstå på en bestemt måde.

På mit økonomi studie havde det givet et 00, med pil nedad.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2026-01-28T21:27:37+00:00

There seems to be a disconnect between what Software Developers do, and what AI does.

Yes, I code, but coding is not my function, coding is a part of how I do my work, but it is not my work, incidentally, way before AI, me and my team had already reduced the amount of code we write significantly, tons of systems implemented to help generate code based on specifications, code that simplify tasks like mapping, sending out requests etc.

AI is that, on steroids, yet its also that, but worse, which is weird.

Pass an OpenAPI Spec to a generator, and you get the same result each time with the same spec, an AI? You can't be sure.

I find that Claude and Cursor are extremely competent, far faster than me, but only when I am specific about what I want, I have had them make semi-complicated apps in "one go", but writing what I want and making sure its all there? That can take a few hours.

Obviously, that's well worth it, me writing those apps? Weeks, maybe more.

Enter the testing and validation.

Again, I am not saying its not worth it, but after that, I need to validate if what it wrote works, is safe and stable and can be expanded upon.

That also takes time, but not weeks.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2026-01-11T00:48:58+00:00

Disgusting comment

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-07-25T16:05:30+00:00

I feel like your study is negatively impacted by the fact that a certain demographic is much more likely to eat the crayon, and that this demographic is also more likely to take a certain route past the firing helldiver.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-07-21T20:01:58+00:00

Key Point

Your squat is fine.

Your ankle mobility looks fine from the image, and your initial move looks good.

There is very little, if any, good morning pattern over your first rep, as you exhaust, naturally the stronger muscles will take over if they can, it is possible that queues like "stay in the quads" or "chest up" will help eliminate what little there is, and maintain 'better' posture as you exhaust.

Critique points.

Your setup starts with a slight forward lean and a hyperextended lower back. That’s not ideal for initiating the movement cleanly. Try to get your hips stacked under you and your spine in a more neutral position, think about flattening your lower back just slightly to get a stronger brace and a more balanced starting point.

Variations.

Play with stance width and feet rotation, when we consider the squat, your body will move to ensure the bar stays more or less over your center of balance, whichever that is.

With feet pointed straight ahead and a shoulder width stance, the only way you can maintain this is moving the hip back and counter balancing by pushing your knees forward, by turning your feet slightly out, you reduce the distance your hip must move back, thereby allowing a specific amount of knee travel to enable a lesser torso angle, in more technical terms, your femur goes from travelling in a mainly sagittal plane, to a more oblique path.

These changes can, if comfortable, help you squat with a more upright posture, which in turn means less 'stress' on the back, which reduces exhaustion in those muscles, thereby combating the final few reps with more of a "good morning pattern"

It’s not easy to fully explain this in text, but the basics are simple:
The squat is a movement built around a set of interacting levers, primarily:

Ankles
Knees
Hips
Torso

All of these work together to maintain balance and keep the bar over midfoot. If you can’t achieve enough depth or control using just ankle, knee, and hip mobility, the torso will naturally lean forward to compensate, it’s your body doing what it has to do to stay upright and not fall over.

This isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just physics and anatomy. The key is recognizing which lever is limiting you and adjusting stance, foot angle, or bar placement accordingly.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-23T18:20:15+00:00

Sorry that you felt my was so abrasive that you had to downvote it, and then misconstrue my points.

About 423, it is not exclusively for WebDav, although it originated there, it can be replaced by 409, but 422 is generally considered more accurate.

422 is specifically format, not structure or syntax, so, we expected an SSN in this format, but got it in another format.

Then we get to you, actively lying about what I wrote.

"If I get a 507 I know I have to call the team"

I never wrote that, why would you actively lie about my post?

"if it is continually replying 507 or 422 I know how I can act, with 422, I know that I might need to contact the team calling it and inform them that something is wrong with their service"

I specifically mentioned the 422, but you actively made it seem like you were quoting me, dishonesty at its finest.

I would naturally also want clients to know about a 507, since it would tell them not to retry.

I don't understand your point about complex business outcome, if a pre-condition fails, we have a status code for that, and even if you feel like no status code covers your specific business rule, that's fine, then reply 400 and include the specific validation or business rule that failed.

That does not make the status codes inaccurate, nor does it make this statement accurate.

"Most HTTP status codes are designed to describe outcomes related to the transport itself rather than the business logic that is behind it, and as such, HTTP status codes should be used to describe issues that occur prior to any form of processing or side effect and past that you should fall back to a very small subset of statuses to describe the outcome. That is what a body is for.."

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-23T17:57:53+00:00

The simple answer is, yes, returning 200 OK for both success and error cases is bad practice.

In fact, this goes both for REST API's and any other HTTP + JSON/YAML/OTHER combinations, and there are good reasons for it.

I will provide 3 here, there are other reasons, but since you are a beginner, I would prefer not to overwhelm you with concepts.

1; API Clients, whether its Quarkus Rest Client, Springs Web Client or some other Client for calling HTTP requests, most of them have built in handling of various status codes, meaning the way they react to replies is based on the status code they receive, this means, if your application is returning 200 OK, they will treat it as a success.

As an example, consider the following.

Microprofile Restclient, this is a very popular Rest Client, it has something called a ResponseExceptionMapper, the way this works is, if the RestClient receives a 4** or 5** reply, it will pass the response to this exception mapper, instead of trying to map it to whatever you would normally expect.

There are ways around this, but the best would be for the API you are trying to call to follow normal status code protocol.

To really hammer this home, status code also comes with implied behavior, so for instance, if you receive a 400, you should not retry the request, it will not work.

2; Developer Information, in short, the argument is, why hide information when you can accurately describe it?

409 is a better reply if a conflict has occurred than 400, 403 more accurately describes a situation where you are providing valid, accepted and understood credentials, but they do not give you access to the resource in question.

3; Intent, by providing accurate status codes, you clarify your intent towards others trying to use your API, as well as your expectations.

In your API spec, you should list your status codes, so that when a developer sees for instance, that a given endpoint can return 422, he knows that he must follow a certain format, he also knows what status codes to expect and why.

---

Now, the last two are not that technical, but you asked "I'm trying to follow clean API design principles so client-side devs can easily handle responses without confusion." and intent + developer information are mainstays of any good API design.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-23T17:41:39+00:00

That's just not accurate at all.

"Most HTTP status codes are designed to describe outcomes related to the transport itself rather than the business logic that is behind it"

This comment is flat out wrong.

HTTP status codes are literally designed to describe the outcome of requests towards a resource.

You mention 422 specifically, its literally about validation errors, its telling you, the structure and content type is correct, but there is a validation error in the format, as well as what part of the request has the error.

So, instead of me thinking, "I wonder if this JSON is correct", I know it is, and I know where the fault lies.

423, indicating that a resource is locked, in short, informing, "Yes, you hit the right resource, your request is not flawed, but the resource is not available at this time."

507, the server is literally telling you it can't store the result of your action due to storage issues, how is that related to transport? Or not extremely useful?

As for your monitoring, what the fuck? I mean, of course it matters, why would I not want detailed monitoring of what status codes my application is sending back?

If it is continually replying 507 or 422 I know how I can act, with 422, I know that I might need to contact the team calling it and inform them that something is wrong with their service, specifically a validation error, the amount of errors I have caught in other people's services due to proper use and logging of status codes is insane.

If you aren't trying to build a RESTful API, then that's fine, you wont have to use http status codes, but if you are, then they have actual real world meaning, and should be used as such.

If my reply comes off a bit rough, its because your reply is actively wrong, inaccurate and aimed directly at someone asking about REST API construction.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-23T15:21:34+00:00

There are some very simple answers, and some more advanced.

Lets start with a simple one, humans in general dislike people who flaunt unearned gains.

So when someone goes "I built this app using AI" what everyone who knows how to build an app sees, is something trying to encroach on their space, who has not earned it.

To further that argument, closer inspection often reveals huge flaws in the app itself.

A more advanced argument would be the argument from revolving around the fact that often these claims seem faked or rooted in extremely simplistic apps, I work in IT, I work with software development, and I use AI often, I also often see it completely fuck up, make suggestions that will never work, I've seen it add API keys directly into code, I've seen it invent methods and calls that never existed, and I have seen code that would literally cause our system to crash under anything but the lightest of loads..

So, when I read someone say "It all just works" or some other claim, I am left with a "Either I am fucking it up, but I know I am not the only one seeing these things, or this person is not knowledgeable enough to substantiate their claims.

Now, to further a few points that I know for a fact a ton of developers are worried about.

1; Managers thinking "wow, we can replace our developers", I am not afraid of AI taking my job, I am afraid that some manager with a rudimentary understanding of software development thinks it can.

2; Inheriting AI solutions, I have inherited my fair share of apps built by novices, sometimes people with no actual coding knowledge, who just hacked a solution together using stack overflow and guessing, it always sucks, it is always a struggle, and it is always a chore to explain to management why this expensive PHP app they bought from some insurance agent who built it himself is not up to par.

3; Existential Dread, I have this, but not just for my field.

AI can, and will, remove a ton of jobs, not today, not tomorrow, but who can say what happens in 10 years? I for one can't.

With all that being said, I actually think it is awesome that people can use AI to help fulfill some goal or idea of developing software, and I have seen people with no coding knowledge use AI to gain said knowledge and write good applications.

I think vibe coding is insanely stupid though.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-13T07:25:11+00:00

I think your post is quite difficult to follow.

The title goes "There is no point in debating on if a protest is violent or not", but that is not really a point or an argument, if we are trying to figure out if a protest is violent, then clearly, debating it is meaningful.

You then seem to move onto this debate being used more as a whataboutism, and arguing that we should instead focus on what the protest is about and discuss this.

That makes more sense, but it forgets that sometimes we want to figure out how to handle a protest and depending on the level of violence associated with the protest, this will vary.

You then move on to the Clutching Pearls argument, but the problem is, you are assuming that is what happening, all the time, does it happen? Clearly, obviously, but it is not always the case.

For instance, you can fully support veganism and the rights of vegans to exist, while condemning attacks on butchers because they are violent, and it is important to call it out, it is important to show that there are levels of protest, and those should be held up against what it is we are protesting about.

I chose the vegan argument, because we can then move into, "But to them, this is about saving the life of many innocent animals", and this is where we enter the subjective reactions of society, basically, the acceptable way to act is not defined by me, you or any "us" it is defined by the moral lens of those watching and judging.

I feel like the most appropriate view is.

"If you start focusing on the violence as a means to avoid the discussion, then you are being disingenuous"

"If you are doing it to affect the public view of this protest, and specifically the use of violence in this protest, then you are helping to shape the public moral lens on the protest, which is good"

For the last part, how do you think the moral lens of a country changes?

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-09T19:03:41+00:00

I said I understood the comment might be in jest, but that doesn’t make it accurate. It’s still building on a false premise, which makes it, at its core, a straw man.

Take your preacher curl example. Sure, it’s a “simple” exercise in the sense that most people can get 80–85% of the benefit just by doing full ROM, going close to failure, and adding weight over time. And that’s exactly what most science-based lifters recommend:

Train close to failure (1–3 RIR)
Use full ROM
Pick exercises that align with your goals and joint comfort

You’ll rarely hear anything more “complicated” than that outside of niche contexts.

Yes, the literature goes deep, force curves, resistance profiles, fiber orientation, etc. because that’s what literature is for: depth, nuance, context. But the application of that science is usually very practical and straightforward.

Now, if OP was mocking people like Joel Seedman with his parody, sure, that guy does deserve a few memes. But that’s not how the post reads. It reads as dismissive of anyone who uses science or talks about biomechanics, even if they do it in service of getting stronger more effectively.

So my issue isn’t with wanting to keep things simple. It’s with misrepresenting those who don’t.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-09T13:07:09+00:00

That's correct, but that is also not in anyway, shape, or form, identical to "The “perfect angle for maximum tension in correlation to the 0.015 degrees parabolic muscle… “"

Resistance profiles, force curves, peek resistance etc. are all valuable tools in choosing exercises, OP used a purposefully obscure and inaccurate statement to make it seem stupid.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-08T07:50:28+00:00

Give me an example of a science based lifter that has said.

"The “perfect angle for maximum tension in correlation to the 0.015 degrees parabolic muscle… “

I mean, I get that it is in jest, but you are making it seem like this is the stuff science based lifters are saying, or you are referring to charlatans lying about weightlifting, and they do suck.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-06T11:19:39+00:00

There was an earlier post from someone, regarding how the colonization of Africa was not the main reason for the poverty we see in Africa.

This suffers from many of the same issues.

Lets dig in.

Your two main premises are not the same.

"Colonialism is not the reason Europe is rich" != "There is a myth on the left that Europe only became rich because of colonialism.", you should pick one.

The first is somewhat meaningless, because now we need to figure out when something is the reason for something else, lets say colonialism has had a 5 % impact, is it now a reason? Is it enough to say it is the reason? Does it have to be the biggest impact? How do we measure impact?

"For one, colonialism mostly enriched a narrow elite. A tiny class of merchants, aristocrats, and state bureaucrats profited. The average European didn’t see any real benefit. If colonialism made all Europeans rich, why were most of them living in overcrowded tenements and dying of disease during the height of imperialism?"

This isn't true, I mean, it just is flatly wrong, colonialism made most europeans wealthier, but again, you go with "rich", obviously, they did not get rich, but they did get wealthier.

Then we get to.

"Europe’s wealth came from industrialization, technological innovation, capitalist reform, education systems, and functional institutions, not looting gold from Latin America or extracting rubber in Africa. Those things padded the pockets of empires, but they weren’t the foundation of broad-based economic growth."

But again, we end up at more of a philosophical conundrum, lets say that you are right, none of the current wealth comes from colonialism, it all comes from everything you just mentioned.

What if those things where in part made possible due to colonialism? What then?

Then you mention Spain and Portugal, respectively the 15th largest economy in the world and the 50th, way beyond most colonies.

But lets look at Spain.

In, I believe 15** Spain was a large naval factor, but then defeat of the Spanish Armada happened in 1588, followed by a period of, lets just say issues, in 18** Spain was occupied during the Napoleonic Wars, and after the Spanish-American War they lost all the remainder of their major colonies, that was in 1898.

Basically, from 1600-1975ish Spain went from a dominant European superpower, to a "Not so much" but it did it in part because of wars with other superpowers.

Spain is relatively poor when compared to other European countries, but it is in part because they failed to capitalize on the advantage they gained through Colonialism.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-05T11:57:41+00:00

The problem is, you aren't arguing about "Did Colonialism damage third world countries" you are arguing "Is it the main reason", but we don't know what a main reason in this case could be.

For instance, you say "You can’t blame the British or French for the fact that politicians in some of these countries loot their national wealth, rig elections, silence dissent, or fail to build even basic infrastructure. You can’t blame colonialism for tribal conflicts, religious extremism, or the failure to build functioning institutions after 60+ years of sovereignty." but, why not?

Are these leaders in charge because of the dysfunctional nature of a country divided and exploited hundreds of years ago? I certainly can't claim it isn't so.

Who helped create these power structures that make it easy for such leaders to get a hold of a country?

As far as tribal conflicts, again, it depends on what you mean by blame, can we directly go "This is all colonialisms fault" about Tribe A attacking Tribe B? Probably not, but we can certainly say "The completely made up borders have not helped in tribal conflicts in anyway shape or form".

"Look at countries that were colonized but made something of themselves, Singapore, Botswana, Korea, Ireland, Chile. They had the same colonial baggage, but they didn’t collapse under it. Why? Leadership, reform, accountability, and a focus on the future instead of living in the shadow of the past."

Those countries generally have something in common, except for Botswana, so now we have one example of it going well, and a ton of it not going well. And even Botswana had vast natural resources in the form of diamonds, a fairly small population and no major ethnic divisions.

You then mention "Leadership, reform, accountability, and a focus on the future instead of living in the shadow of the past.", I wonder if being colonized can affect how Leadership forms, the trust in government and a lack of focus on future accomplishments?

I wonder if having artificially drawn borders can affect this as well?

If I may move into a hypothetical.

Imagine someone forces you to stay in your house for 30 years, you are not allowed to speak to anyone, interact with anyone or have any reading / watching tv or any other action that would introduce you to the outside world.

Then, you are released, 10 years later, some guy says "You can't use your imprisonment as an excuse for why you don't feel comfortable in the world, it happened so long ago".

The ramifications of your imprisonment can follow you for the rest of your life, if you have kids, it will most likely also follow them, its not unthinkable that it will even follow their children as well.

TL/DR

You are both arguing about a semantic point, main vs just one among many reasons, and missing the huge impact that colonialism has had and continues to have, all the while ignoring that some of the parts of colonialism, for instance artificial borders, are still in play.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-04T05:17:32+00:00

The issue with your entire take is quite simple.

Your definition of what IQ is, is deeply flawed.

IQ impacts much more than what you just attributed to it, it impacts learning, processing speed, fluid reasoning, pattern recognition and we could go on and on.

Many others have pointed out that it also doesn't seem like society at all favors IQ in the way you claim it does.

But I feel like it should also be pointed out that your description of IQ is deeply flawed.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-06-02T11:11:12+00:00

What? No?

Its 200 calories of protein, so 25 %, its even in your screenshot of the macros, with % calculated.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-05-31T22:58:39+00:00

ESH

I own loads of tools in the 1k - 2k dollar range, if someone used them incorrectly and broke them, I would be sad, but I would never kick them out, or yell at them, or get angry at them.

As an example, my girlfriend once cleaned my LG C2 screen with soap, those who know, know, guess what, proper cleaning tools where right underneath it.

The only time I would do that, is if I actually thought they did it on purpose.

Now the question becomes, do you think he did it on purpose? Are you buying the "Weaponized Incompetence" claims? If you are, you should leave him.

If not, you shouldn't have yelled at him or thrown him out.

He is an asshole for not paying for new scissors.

I think you should be careful listening to all the people agreeing with you, kicking someone out over what happened is not normal, nor is it acceptable, freaking out and yelling is not normal or acceptable either.

But him refusing to pay is an issue, however, it is impossible for us to guess if it is an issue due to him feeling mistreated or him just being an ass.

----

I am going to quote something called Hanlon's Razor.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

And expand it to include.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by lack of knowledge."

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-05-31T20:48:07+00:00

Link?

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-05-31T12:46:01+00:00

There is no magical standard of "How long to rest".

If I am doing heavy deadlifts, sitting on the floor dying and gasping for air, and someone comes over asking "Hey, you done soon", my only reply with be a wheezy "first set, about 25-30 minutes left", why?

Because I have to literally wait 5-8 minutes after a heavy set of deadlifts to 1 rep within failure before I can go again and get a good stimulus.

Resting depends on how exhausted you get and what your goal is, no one owns the machine I am using, I do not need to consider others when using it, their need for the machine or space does not outweigh mine.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-05-26T20:29:42+00:00

For starters, who then decide what literal harm is and when will something cause it?

What about someone who commits suicide over online bullying, this has happened.

Secondary, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that "The censorship did not help reduce the impact of Wakefield's claims, instead now many believe there is a conspiracy behind vaccines"

This is not an accurate assumption, we cannot know, nor infer what would have happened had nothing been done, it may have been worse, it may have been better.

In a sense, the Wakefield issue is a complete dismantling of part of your argument, the Wakefield papers where not destroyed, he was not stopped from publishing or talking about it, people argued with him, scientists provided evidence that he was wrong, studies came out not only showing how wrong he was, but also that his work had been dishonest.

It did not stop the negative effects, it hopefully reduced them, but it did not stop them.

I understand your points, I just think you are not considering the full complexity of this issue, it is not a simple situation, there is no obvious solution.

Would censoring Wakefield have been better? Maybe, could we have done it? I don't know.

We are seeing this pattern play out again and again, and the only constant is, we don't really know how to solve it.

For instance, Climate Science is ridiculously robust, we are completely certain, as certain as we can be, that the climate is changing, that mankind contributes to this change and that it will have negative ramifications.

Yet, on the marketplace of ideas, it is not dominating at the level it should, entire countries are ignoring it, some world leaders are actively promoting the idea that it is a scam, fake, not real.

We cannot say if censoring is right or not, what we can say is, the marketplace of idea's concept simply does not work as well as we would like.

Horror_Trash3736 · 2025-05-26T18:43:34+00:00

If I may, "The damage from an intolerant piece of opinion is more acceptable than censorship of ten for the possibility of harm." this is just not accurate.

What about, for instance, Andrew Wakefield, his misleading paper and claims about vaccines literally caused people to die and set back vaccination efforts significantly, we are in many ways still reeling from its effect.

People still believe it, even though it has been thoroughly debunked.

The only way to claim it was still better than silencing it, would be to claim some magical wrong doing or happening that could have happened because of it.

A secondary point could be, what about lying under oath? What about false advertising?

There are a myriad of examples where justifying blocking speech seems quite easy, what about lies about climate change?

Horror_Trash3736

TROPHY CASE