What if Brexit is the true end of the 20th century? What if instead of a resurgence of atavistic nationalism, this was the beginning of its final death throes?
Imagine Brexit tearing apart Britain as Scotland and Ireland separate into their own countries, London turns into a city-state like a (marginally less totalitarian) Singapore of Europe, hopefully also taking Oxford and Cambridge with it out of the rotten husk of an empire England has turned into.
It would suck horribly for innocent people in England, but it would have a certain spiteful sense of justice and vindication; the R tribe tried to impose its values on tribe U, but instead only managed to destroy its country in the name of making it great again. Nationalism dealing the killing blow to the empire which once ruled half the world. The R tribe relies on looting U regions with its “democracy” to fund the imposition of its reactionary worldview and there could be nothing better than for tribe U to turn R’s tricks against it by showing that exit is a two-way street.
Scotland becoming independent seems like almost a given; Irish unification is promising but London is the truly interesting one. If London were to secede, it would show that the nation-state is powerless in the face of global power. The old borders wouldn’t be safe anymore. If the City’s loyalty lies with the rest of the world instead of people sharing some superficial genetic and cultural characteristics, it might open the floodgates everywhere else as well and slay the 19-20th century leviathan for good.
A lot of people have expressed worry that this would be the resurgence of the nation-state and the end of the internationalist project.
I think this might just as well be the end of the nation-state instead.
The age of the nation-state began at the end of the medieval free cities, as cannons allowed kings of the countryside to enforce their rule on cities as well. The social-cultural construct of the nation-state happened in earnest when the nations began shedding their kings and unifying themselves, and it’s easy to see why people might then conclude that the nation-state is the natural endpoint of history to which things will always revert…
Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
There is no inherent reason why nation-states would be the natural division of people.
Sure, when one looks at the maps, one can clearly see how Scotland is a naturally different polity than England and trying to forcibly keep them together is just asking for trouble.
But London is naturally different too. What does Sadiq Khan’s city have in common with the English UKIP-voting hordes who were willing to ruin their country because they hate brown people? A language, but San Francisco speaks the same language as London. Geographical location, but Ulster managed to stay separate from Ireland for a long time, and Singapore hasn’t been annexed by Malaysia. Political entity, but brexit has shown that polities can be reshaped by the will of the people constituting them.
Nation-states haven’t been a constant in history, but cities have. Every time it has been technologically and societally possible, humans have flocked together and increased each other’s prosperity with trade and cooperation. Democratic nation-states are economically artificial, kept together by barely disguised force; the Paris Commune was brought down by the king’s cannons, not by its own economic infeasibility. The history of the nation-state can be seen as the countryside gaining a capability to loot the cities, and constructing fictions to support this; now what happens if that capability is gone?
When one looks at the data, cities are clearly a different animal from the countryside. Wealthy, liberal, cosmopolitan, globalist. London has far more things in common with Amsterdam and New York than with the English countryside, and in a sense the relationship between the city and the countryside leeching off it via the nation-state is always inherently under a certain tension; now what happens if this is the last straw?
Why should London be loyal to England, when England has shown itself able and willing to only ever take and take? When Scotland tears apart from the union, London’s northern ally in internationalism will be gone and it will be ever more isolated, surrounded by people who are all too willing to enjoy the fruits of London’s prosperity yet completely unwilling to contribute to it, even the bare minimum amount of not actively sabotaging the things that make such prosperity possible in the first place. The story of Atlas Shrugged is naive in its individualistic hero-worship, but replace the few greater-than-life personalities with millions of people, and Galt’s Gulch with London and it starts making a strange amount of sense.
If London were to leave England to the mess of its own making, it would deal a humiliating blow to the countryside, itself grown fat off the loot from the cities and fearful of immigrants and foreigners, the exact people who created the riches the countryside has for so long been stealing through the ballot box. And it’s not like the cities are even unwilling to share their riches; and it certainly might be different if all the countryside asked for was some money so it doesn’t starve, but the countryside is not satisfied with material sharing; what it truly wants is submission.
Like a classical abusive partner, the countryside has always been telling the city it cannot survive alone, yet in reality only the threat of violence is the only thing maintaining the relationship. The countryside stays at home, growing ever more unemployed and useless, while the city is working hard to feed them both. The countryside continuously stalks the city whenever it leaves the house, suspicious of everything the city is doing with foreigners, prone to jealous fits of anger whenever the city doesn’t submit sufficiently to its will. “What are you doing with those foreigners and immigrants? Do you not love me? I am your only one, nobody else may have you!”
Why doesn’t the city just leave?
As usual, the immediate reason is that the dangers of leaving are greater than the dangers of staying. “Sure, the countryside is under a lot of stress but deep down it loves me and after all, it’s not that bad, at least compared to what it would do to me if I tried to dump it; remember what happened to poor Paris?” But if the countryside grows abusive enough, its threats empty enough, the city’s allies strong enough to protect it from its ex, would the city still stay?
I hope the answer is no, and I hope the last straw will be here and now.
If the countryside is so blatantly willing to impose its rottenness on the cities, let it rot away. If democracy creates reactionary atavistic nation-states, to hell with democratic states then. Tribe R doesn’t create the wealth, yet it will always demand its share. “Buy American!” “Britain first!” “Auslander raus!” “Rajat kiinni!” Tribe R will happily take tribe U’s money, but it will reject its values and seek to impose its own. Via the democratic majority rule of the nation-state this strategy has always seen a degree of success; the amount of liberty that’s legal in cities has always been constrained by the conservative countryside. This is clearly an abusive relationship, now what if the cannon marriage of city and country were finally broken?
If London said “no”, would 2016 idly watch by like 1871? What rhetorical pretzels would the nationalists tie themselves into as “fellow brits” rejected their nightmarish utopia? “But you were supposed to be one of us” they would say, and London would whisper “no”. What if the reactionary populism was shown to be the blatant robbery it is? What if England was left to its own devices, without London’s money and influence? The populists could not make Britain great again; they would trash their own country and come begging for foreign aid at London’s doorstep. Without tribe U, tribe R is nothing but a raving bunch of barbarians. A country made solely of Clinton’s voters would still be a global power; a country made solely of Trump’s voters would be a backwards hellhole.
And if tribe R is willing to tear apart political structures at its whims, I say let them have a taste of their own medicine. If they would split the “artificial fiction” of the EU, let us split the artificial fiction of Britain! Let us leave them to their own devices, wallowing in a misery of their own creation. They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of the IWW or Adam Smith. Decent people who believed in the common good of international cooperation without borders. Instead they followed the droppings of demagogues and populists and didn’t realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don’t tell me they didn’t have a choice. Now the whole Europe stands on the brink, staring down into bloody Hell, all those reactionaries and nationalists and rabble-rousers… and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.
Call their bluff. Show them what they are made of. Show them that the world has new rules now, and new rules. That the mob of the nation-state cannot impose its terms upon the cities any longer. That we would’ve been willing to share our riches if that had been the only thing they asked for, but of course it never truly was about the riches in the first place; no, it was jealousy and fear over our way of life, something they wanted to extinguish just as much as to simply loot.
Let this be the end of the EU, but not the new dawn of the nation-state. Instead…
The end of the nation-state and the new dawn of the free city.
London, be our Lucifer, our morningstar, to bear the light to a brighter future free from the oppression of democratic nationalism, nationalistic democracy!
So you still believe you are superior?
I’m not wholly opposed to the idea, but what happens to all the stuff that’s currently controlled by the (wholly notional) “nation-state”? What happens to the armies? What happens to the nukes?
This would be really solid idea if you pound the enormous kinks out of it.
I’d like to give the nukes to London because England would be way too volatile and aggressive, but splitting the nukes and other military materiel according to GDP (yes I’m evil) is pragmatic. As a primary rule, both sides could otherwise mainly keep the stuff falling on their side of the border. Voluntary population transfers should obviously be arranged for those who don’t want to be stuck on the wrong side. The overseas territories could choose which polity they want to belong to: London, England, or independence.
What if Brexit is the true end of the 20th century? What if instead of a resurgence of atavistic nationalism, this was the beginning of its final death throes?
Imagine Brexit tearing apart Britain as Scotland and Ireland separate into their own countries, London turns into a city-state like a (marginally less totalitarian) Singapore of Europe, hopefully also taking Oxford and Cambridge with it out of the rotten husk of an empire England has turned into.
It would suck horribly for innocent people in England, but it would have a certain spiteful sense of justice and vindication; the R tribe tried to impose its values on tribe U, but instead only managed to destroy its country in the name of making it great again. Nationalism dealing the killing blow to the empire which once ruled half the world. The R tribe relies on looting U regions with its “democracy” to fund the imposition of its reactionary worldview and there could be nothing better than for tribe U to turn R’s tricks against it by showing that exit is a two-way street.
Scotland becoming independent seems like almost a given; Irish unification is promising but London is the truly interesting one. If London were to secede, it would show that the nation-state is powerless in the face of global power. The old borders wouldn’t be safe anymore. If the City’s loyalty lies with the rest of the world instead of people sharing some superficial genetic and cultural characteristics, it might open the floodgates everywhere else as well and slay the 19-20th century leviathan for good.
A lot of people have expressed worry that this would be the resurgence of the nation-state and the end of the internationalist project.
I think this might just as well be the end of the nation-state instead.
The age of the nation-state began at the end of the medieval free cities, as cannons allowed kings of the countryside to enforce their rule on cities as well. The social-cultural construct of the nation-state happened in earnest when the nations began shedding their kings and unifying themselves, and it’s easy to see why people might then conclude that the nation-state is the natural endpoint of history to which things will always revert…
Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
There is no inherent reason why nation-states would be the natural division of people.
Sure, when one looks at the maps, one can clearly see how Scotland is a naturally different polity than England and trying to forcibly keep them together is just asking for trouble.
But London is naturally different too. What does Sadiq Khan’s city have in common with the English UKIP-voting hordes who were willing to ruin their country because they hate brown people? A language, but San Francisco speaks the same language as London. Geographical location, but Ulster managed to stay separate from Ireland for a long time, and Singapore hasn’t been annexed by Malaysia. Political entity, but brexit has shown that polities can be reshaped by the will of the people constituting them.
Nation-states haven’t been a constant in history, but cities have. Every time it has been technologically and societally possible, humans have flocked together and increased each other’s prosperity with trade and cooperation. Democratic nation-states are economically artificial, kept together by barely disguised force; the Paris Commune was brought down by the king’s cannons, not by its own economic infeasibility. The history of the nation-state can be seen as the countryside gaining a capability to loot the cities, and constructing fictions to support this; now what happens if that capability is gone?
When one looks at the data, cities are clearly a different animal from the countryside. Wealthy, liberal, cosmopolitan, globalist. London has far more things in common with Amsterdam and New York than with the English countryside, and in a sense the relationship between the city and the countryside leeching off it via the nation-state is always inherently under a certain tension; now what happens if this is the last straw?
Why should London be loyal to England, when England has shown itself able and willing to only ever take and take? When Scotland tears apart from the union, London’s northern ally in internationalism will be gone and it will be ever more isolated, surrounded by people who are all too willing to enjoy the fruits of London’s prosperity yet completely unwilling to contribute to it, even the bare minimum amount of not actively sabotaging the things that make such prosperity possible in the first place. The story of Atlas Shrugged is naive in its individualistic hero-worship, but replace the few greater-than-life personalities with millions of people, and Galt’s Gulch with London and it starts making a strange amount of sense.
If London were to leave England to the mess of its own making, it would deal a humiliating blow to the countryside, itself grown fat off the loot from the cities and fearful of immigrants and foreigners, the exact people who created the riches the countryside has for so long been stealing through the ballot box. And it’s not like the cities are even unwilling to share their riches; and it certainly might be different if all the countryside asked for was some money so it doesn’t starve, but the countryside is not satisfied with material sharing; what it truly wants is submission.
Like a classical abusive partner, the countryside has always been telling the city it cannot survive alone, yet in reality only the threat of violence is the only thing maintaining the relationship. The countryside stays at home, growing ever more unemployed and useless, while the city is working hard to feed them both. The countryside continuously stalks the city whenever it leaves the house, suspicious of everything the city is doing with foreigners, prone to jealous fits of anger whenever the city doesn’t submit sufficiently to its will. “What are you doing with those foreigners and immigrants? Do you not love me? I am your only one, nobody else may have you!”
Why doesn’t the city just leave?
As usual, the immediate reason is that the dangers of leaving are greater than the dangers of staying. “Sure, the countryside is under a lot of stress but deep down it loves me and after all, it’s not that bad, at least compared to what it would do to me if I tried to dump it; remember what happened to poor Paris?” But if the countryside grows abusive enough, its threats empty enough, the city’s allies strong enough to protect it from its ex, would the city still stay?
I hope the answer is no, and I hope the last straw will be here and now.
If the countryside is so blatantly willing to impose its rottenness on the cities, let it rot away. If democracy creates reactionary atavistic nation-states, to hell with democratic states then. Tribe R doesn’t create the wealth, yet it will always demand its share. “Buy American!” “Britain first!” “Auslander raus!” “Rajat kiinni!” Tribe R will happily take tribe U’s money, but it will reject its values and seek to impose its own. Via the democratic majority rule of the nation-state this strategy has always seen a degree of success; the amount of liberty that’s legal in cities has always been constrained by the conservative countryside. This is clearly an abusive relationship, now what if the cannon marriage of city and country were finally broken?
If London said “no”, would 2016 idly watch by like 1871? What rhetorical pretzels would the nationalists tie themselves into as “fellow brits” rejected their nightmarish utopia? “But you were supposed to be one of us” they would say, and London would whisper “no”. What if the reactionary populism was shown to be the blatant robbery it is? What if England was left to its own devices, without London’s money and influence? The populists could not make Britain great again; they would trash their own country and come begging for foreign aid at London’s doorstep. Without tribe U, tribe R is nothing but a raving bunch of barbarians. A country made solely of Clinton’s voters would still be a global power; a country made solely of Trump’s voters would be a backwards hellhole.
And if tribe R is willing to tear apart political structures at its whims, I say let them have a taste of their own medicine. If they would split the “artificial fiction” of the EU, let us split the artificial fiction of Britain! Let us leave them to their own devices, wallowing in a misery of their own creation. They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of the IWW or Adam Smith. Decent people who believed in the common good of international cooperation without borders. Instead they followed the droppings of demagogues and populists and didn’t realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don’t tell me they didn’t have a choice. Now the whole Europe stands on the brink, staring down into bloody Hell, all those reactionaries and nationalists and rabble-rousers… and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.
Call their bluff. Show them what they are made of. Show them that the world has new rules now, and new rulers. That the mob of the nation-state cannot impose its terms upon the cities any longer. That we would’ve been willing to share our riches if that had been the only thing they asked for, but of course it never truly was about the riches in the first place; no, it was jealousy and fear over our way of life, something they wanted to extinguish just as much as to simply loot.
Let this be the end of the EU, but not the new dawn of the nation-state. Instead…
The end of the nation-state and the new dawn of the free city.
London, be our Lucifer, our morningstar, to bear the light to a brighter future free from the oppression of democratic nationalism, nationalistic democracy!
Anonymous asked: I mean neoreaction is just an evolution of anarcho-capitalist ideas. Look at Peter Thiel: utterly typical alt-right person and also utterly typical libertarian person, and it's the same qualities and opinions that make him utterly typical of each. It just stands to reason that the alt-right and libertarians are of a kind. I think the alt-right are on an upswing and a lot of libertarians are going to join their ranks over the next decade.
Anarchocapitalism motivated by a desire to live in a specific way (get the government out of my patriarchy) instead of universal freedom is pretty easy to see as naturally evolving into NRx (get my patriarchy into the government).
Maybe my confusion is a consequence of not having read any Thiel, but I have no idea how you could go from ancapism to NRX. “Everyone should be able to make deals on their own without government influence.” Versus “we should bring back the monarchy and patriarchy.”
In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the
purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right
to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s
own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost
any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate
ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and
protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can
be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social
order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from
society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting
family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually
promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates
of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for
instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship,
homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from
society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order
And such an attitude lends itself really well for reactionary bullshit. Especially if the balance of the proposal “okay everyone goes their own way and that’s fucking it” is broken and they start believing the authoritarian theory of government (that anything worth doing must be done with violence) if they aren’t allowed to do their kinks in peace with other consenting adults. If you remove a conservative ancap’s belief in the possibility of freedom the natural outcome is NRx who wants to impose their desired lifestyle upon everyone else instead of having everyone else’s desired lifestyle imposed upon them.
And I could rant massively about how this isn’t exactly surprising; regardless of whether it’s actually true or not, the horrendously code-bloated modern socdem state allows a lot of people to sincerely perceive themselves as the innocent victims of evily moochers and if the only alternative they see is a different oppression, not freedom, then that’s what they’ll support.
So they added a new “digital adult content” drop-down item to select in your Paypal business options but when you choose it your account will immediately be closed down. Just letting everyone know so they don’t get tricked! Even though this is a selectable item IT IS STILL ILLEGAL AND AGAINST PAYPAL POLICY TO SELL “SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIALS OR SERVICES”
asfdgsafsh
somebody outcompete the prudes and regulators of this pos corp
oh wait they can’t it’s probably illegal
somebody outcompete the prudes and regulators of this pos gov
I checked out the link, and I’m not going to try to say that those things did not happen since a somewhat random sampling of the source links would suggest that they did.
However, that same random sampling would also suggest that the vast majority of the incidents on this list appear to be either drug or gang related.
Lets talk about the definition of “mass shooting”
Cribbed from the excellent @therevenantrising , and this next section of text references 2015, but we’ll get to 2016 in a bit
The Anti-Gun Claim That There Have Been Over 350 Mass Shootings In 2015 Alone Is Still Absolute Bullshit.
Well, buckle up buckaroos! Consider this Part 2 to that post, because I have found some more evidence for that ass. So pull up a chair and let’s get started.
Next we have this gem brought to you bywww.TheFederalistPapers.org. This is where it gets really fun. Let’s do this.
GunsAreCool/Reddit has apparently become the go-to source for mass shooting statistics, but is their information accurate?
Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Daily Show and WaPohave all cited the “mass shooting tracker” featured on Reddit’s GunsAreCool forum which says America has seen somewhere in the neighborhood of 353 mass shootings in 2015 alone.
Mere seconds of investigation into this “tracker” proves otherwise.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines a “mass shooting” as an event in which four or more individuals are killed as a result of a shooting. This excludes the shooter, which GunsAreCool includes in their “tracker”.
Going by that definition, are Reddit’s statistics accurate?
Not by a long shot. Let’s take a look at the first seven “mass shootings” recorded by this “tracker.”
None of the first seven shootings qualify as “mass shootings.” Each shooting has a citation leading to a news story about the incident so everyone can confirm it’s not fabricated.
So how many of the 353 shootings listed actually meet the FBI’s definition of a “mass shooting?
22
Out of 353 proclaimed “mass shootings,” only 22 meet the FBI’s criteria of a “mass shooting.”
But let’s not stop there, let’s break down the stories by category. Some of the cases fit into more than one category.
Number Of Stories Where The Shooter’s Death/Injury Is Included In The Death/Injury Numbers:45
Number Of Stories Where The Victims Were Killed By A Family Member/Relative: 23
Number Of Stories Where There Were No Deaths, Just Injuries: 146
Cases That Aren’t Considered Mass Shootings For Reasons Other Than Death Count (Reasons Given Below): 4
Case 9: Murders took place in several different locations with a moderate amount of time between each killing.
Case 111: Police respond to a domestic violence call where they are attacked by a man. (Man did not use firearms in his attack.) Officers shot and killed him.
Case 282: Police confront two men with outstanding warrants, who begin shooting at the officers. Officers shoot back and kill the men. Only two dead are the perpetrators, only two injured are the police.
Case 336: Perpetrator only shot two victims, when the counter says 4. The other two deaths were linked to smoke inhalation after he lit the house on fire.
Number of Shootings That Took Place In A Social Setting (i.e., Party, Concert, Funeral): 114
Number of Shootings That Police Believe To Be Drug/Gang Related: 38
Number Of Drive-By Shootings: 32
Number Of Murder-Suicides: 23
There were several cases in which the facts in the story, and the numbers given on the tracker didn’t match up, such as case 337. The tracker says 5 dead, whereas the article says 5 injured.
So when I use the same site you went to, this is what we get when we sort by the FBI’s own classification system:
12 down from 200.
That is a 94% reduction in the number, using the FBI’s own metrics.
The woman accused of transferring guns used in the Excel Industries shooting spree has pleaded not guilty.
Sarah Hopkins, 28, is charged with knowingly transferring weapons to a convicted felon. Court documents show she and Cedric Ford had a past relationship.
….the gun was illegally obtained, and the 4th person killed was the shooter himself, so that one would fall off the list.
Serrano-Vitorino has had previous run-ins with other agencies.
He was deported to Mexico in 2004. It’s unclear when he returned to the United States, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
By September 15, ICE became aware Serrano-Vitorino had returned to the country illegally after he was fingerprinted at the Overland Park Municipal Court in Kansas.
But ICE mistakenly issued a detainer for him to the wrong sheriff’s office. As a result of the error, Serrano-Vitorino was not taken into custody then.
….so there is no legal way he could have gotten his hands on a gun.
The spokesperson said the .380 semi-automatic handgun Campbell used was owned by Terry Carlson, Lana Carlson’s deceased ex-husband.
Spokesperson Chief Ryan Spurling called Campbell a “career criminal,” someone with non-violent crime convictions in Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wyoming.
As a convicted felon, Campbell was not allowed to be in possession of guns.
So that’s 9. Down from 200.
I’m going to stop here.
If I had the time to go through each one on this list, and I mean the ones that have 3 or less deaths, I’m going to estimate that a lot of those are going to be crimes committed with illegally obtained weapons, people that shouldn’t have been in the country in the first place, and/or gang-related violence, which is just another way of saying illegal gun.
If someone else wants to pick it up from here, you’re welcome to it.
When you think about it, what was the motivation for kinks in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness?
Dunno, but I think that “virile, manly strangers impregnating your spouse” was only added in as a hilarious curveball.
(Terrible ass-pull theory: it’s good to spread your genes far and wide, and therefore good to be attracted to a range of weird stuff?)
I suspect that it’s a consequence of complex intelligence that isn’t strongly enough selected against for it to evolve out of the human population.
It also makes me wonder what kinks existed in ancient times that have now almost completely disappeared because we’ve lost all the requisite social gears to connect the dots…(seamstress fetish in ancient greece?? the seamstress=sex workers connection was so strong that archeologists will pinpoint women on pots who are spinning as sex workers, that’s Cohen (2015). Where are the seamstress fetishists now? In a three-person group on dA somewhere whose moderator abandoned it in 2013?)
Well, if you want an example of a really bizarre kink that somehow became normative among the entire population of one of the world’s greatest civilizations for a time (though it was always somewhat controversial, as I understand it), there’s foot-binding.
Uniform fetishes are evergreen, but uniforms changed, so there probably aren’t many tricorn hat kinksters around
To be fair, a parsimonious alternate explanation for sex workers being depicted as seamstresses is that a lot of brothels doubled as places where clothing was manufactured so the women would have something to do between customers.
Victorians had a really common fetish for women slaughtering ducks iirc; won’t see much of that around these days
trashposts, which are trash, will go to the recycling co which deals with the trash
the main blog will seek to focus on more effortful and higher-quality posts, thus satisfying both the audiences who do not wish to be spammed with trash, and the ones who are totally seeking to be spammed with limitless quantities* of my exceptionally high-quality promethea brand trash
the recycling co will also possibly feature exciting new features, such as less discriminate reblogging, or all your favorite ask memes, that I have kept away from the main blog to avoid excess spamminess
(* Disclaimer: actual quantity may be limited by various factors, including but not limited to: wars, labor action, natural disasters, having better shit to do, and the fundamental laws of physics. Offer void in Nebraska.)
EDIT: Or just have different standards. In my last job, over 2½ years, I wrote maybe at most a hundred lines of Powershell. Do I put Powershell on my resume? Do I put two and a half years of Powershell on my resume?
ok but…..i don’t know how this works in real life but at least a lot of startups will have you solve something nontrivial before they talk to you
That’s because startups know their shit and they haven’t hired the non-fizzbuzzers so they actually are capable of pre-filtering, is my guess
