qt7

> So, this is just a simpler way of doing

Exactly. A simpler way of doing something which is already not that challenging, adding some functionality that is not so great.

It seems pretty unexciting overall and switching is not that compelling, since it requires more typing most of the times and the old formatting is not going anywhere any time soon.

Out of that post I got the feeling of an unhealthy obsession with being promoted, being promoted quickly, being recognised as excellent, nothing less-than-excellent on his review, complaining burn-out (really?).

I probably would have had a hard time dealing with what seems to be a youth with a big ego, with a needing behaviour, no idea of how to behave himself and how to balance life and work.

I get it, he was young, still, not the type of person I'd ever want to hire.

I second your experience and looking back I am surprised I made it through the years with only scratches and bruises, no serious accidents.

> You might not get “Paris-level results,” or the world’s best city for biking, [omissis]

The best city for biking? Paris is a mess and a dangerous place for cyclists.

I am very pleased to hear they are investing more to fix the situation. That is the news to me.

Maybe? Probably? I would surely consider it.

The only civil reply to my comment above. We may not share the same opinion, but I appreciate your considerate response. My post above probably came out too harsh, that was unintended.

> I don't think that the ritual slaughter of islam and conventional slaughter are different enough for the line between barbaric and non-barbaric to coincidentally somehow end up right between them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/outcry-after-...

> As for slaughtering an animal that you've enjoyed the company of, I'm not sure how it is any worse than slaughtering an animal you didn't enjoy the company of.

If you actually believe that which you're saying, you'd have no problem slaughtering your dog.

It blows my mind how you can enjoy the company of an animal and then not only eat them -- somewhat understandable as we need to eat to stay alive -- but... encouraging their ritual slaughtering? I'm speechless.

Not only "ritual" and "slaughtering" are words that should give goosebumps when used together, but even encouraging it, when you don't even believe in that barbaric procedure, it's frankly inhumane.

I am surprised nobody mentioned Venice, the largest car-free city in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice#In_the_historical_city

Of course you're right, but there's a misunderstanding there.

My point is people who went through the experience of having test results compatible with cancer and then discover it is just a false positive (which technically it's not even true, there's no cancer diagnosis before a biopsy, it just can't be excluded), well, these very people seem to speak out against screening, or adopting more extensive screening policies, because they had a "false positive", and "it's stressful".

I am pretty sure all the people whose lives were saved by screening find that pretty selfish.

I don't know about your country, but genetic screening / testing is something you need to ask for, not something that happens as a by-product of a CT scan.

If you worry that much about a false positive, I'm sorry for you, but you have no idea how much worse things may get. Many people don't get to complain about a false positive!

Stressing and worrying are both several orders of magnitude better than suffering and dying.

Source: My case wasn't a false positive.