Where were you when I started writing my code ;_; I have also written a spreadsheet engine in Rust from scratch, for an app built with the iced GUI library!
I'll take a deep dive through your repo and compare notes later this week. Congrats on the huge lift!!
I have no opinion on the matter but I feel it is my duty to point out that having written books in and of itself is no indication of the quality of their work so your stated logic does not follow, unless you dropped an /s
There is nothing to disagree here, it’s the philosophical definition of a right. It only exists if there is an obligation on the other side, in this case, to allow you to speak freely and without interference (applies both to individuals and the state).
My battery ran out before I could delete. I had another sentence there at first about "unless you call respecting rights an obligation," but I took it out because I didn't want to make a mess. To me an obligation in this context means the thing which is created by a positive right. (IME when someone uses "obligation" for negative rights, it's often for a bad-faith argument relying on the vagueness of "rights" to score a rhetorical point.) The analogous but different thing that some would say arises from a negative right, to me, is properly described another way.
My right to life[0] can still exist without you being obligated not to murder me. It means that I am always justified in self-defense, so if you try to kill me, I'm allowed to kill you back. Except not always. But basically always. Except for the exceptions we can frame a million different ways. In practice, neither of our rights to life are absolute...and so on, down the rabbit hole.
[0] But wait: My natural right? My legal right? In terms of enforcement? Or in some vague sense that I "have" a right and those are words I get to say, and, uh, if you don't like it then I'll say them again? In practice, no one cares. People just say "rights" to mean "I'm right."
Talking about rights is fraught and frustrating and mostly pointless, and my comment wasn't worth writing, but there's nothing I can do about it now.
Only if you're solving to "win" every time, but in relationships you're often solving to also please the other person. Plus people get decision fatigue, so deferring to the other person can be doubly good... but not to the point where you don't care at all where to go, because you still have your standards and soft preferences and some places you'd like to veto entirely... which is why couples often get into this endless dance when deciding something for both.
It's true also of deciding what to watch. I've spent 30+ minutes debating what to watch, only to realize we should be going to sleep in just another 15 mins so no we can't really watch anything anymore
So over the years my strategy has morphed to making the decision and taking responsibility for making it an enjoyable experience for both
> I've spent 30+ minutes debating what to watch...
This is something I've personally wanted to dive into the psychology of more.
Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed that - in the days of streaming and everything being on-demand - picking what to watch is actually very frustrating to me. Quite often, I'd much rather just browse "live" TV and stop on something I like.
I'd never think to myself "I feel like watching The Goonies". But if I'm flipping channels and The Goonies happens to be on - 20 minutes into it - I'll stop there and absolutely enjoy watching the rest of it.
The indication is that people consume content online in different modes based on their objectives. Perhaps the mode of consumption for food decisions / streaming decisions is part of the category where we dont want to work very hard to get to an answer.
reply