What if it’s just not for you? Not in a bad way, but in a blunt, not everything is for everybody way? To me thats ok.

Art comes to us 1. at a time 2. in a place 3. in a culture.
Those things together sometimes make magic for millions and it’s cool. But sometimes all of them are off just enough to make the art uncompelling - we just can’t get into it. Name a top artist of the last 50 years, and there a millions of people who would give anything to see them one more time, and millions (who have listened) and it just doesn’t do anything for them.

I’ve heard a couple of 60’s big acts say I’m not sure how you could enjoy our music without living the lifestyle we were into back then. That scratches at the thing I’m talking about, it’s sometimes a bit of ‘you had to be there.’ That phrase is abused, but when it’s used right it has meaning. You’re hanging out with friends and the funniest thing happens. The next day you try to tell the story and it falls so flat of the experience. It was a time, a place, a people that made the magic.

Agreeing with other folk who point to his mastery, his craft, his ingenuity, his artistry, integrity. And those are all arguably real, measurable and true. But that doesn’t mean it will speak to everyone. Or even be enjoyable by everyone.

for me to get Prince, I had to be a teenager first experiencing life and love and pain, and seeing Purple Rain as my first real musical movie, and having a brother who thought Prince as a genius, and a few close friends who would loan me the albums, and a tape deck to listen to on the way to school, and a radio that was playing the new hits - Abracadabra, Jack and Diane, and Hard to Say I’m Sorry, You Dropped the Bomb on Me, and Oh Mickey. In that soup, 1999 comes to me and I see it in Technicolor somehow, and it seeps in, and I read the liner notes, and lay on the floor listening, imagining. I had to have the mystery about a man who really only had one name, and what the word androgynous means. I think I had to have all of these things to get Prince. And for years I did. And I got older, and I got it less, and others more, and maybe back again a couple of times. The last thing is the new of it all. You cant recapture, re-experience the new - and once it’s here it changes all of us, and everything is maybe a bit different and maybe a bit better, but it’s near impossible to look back and feel what happened, you can only feel it going forward. I’d like to feel the Beatle’s coming to America, or Chuck Berry on TV, or Getting muddy at Woodstock, but that’s not really a thing. You can read, and watch, and learn get an appreciation, but we can’t recatch old waves.

decorum: a solemn request that questions use question marks.

why: differentiation - between “hey. look at what I made” posts and “anybody know how I can?” questions.

… and liars lie.

… and liars lie.

I’m just saying in the whole demo, they didn’t sit in the chair.

yes!

nope. not ready.

The Hatch Act Explained

The Hatch Act is a U.S. federal law that was enacted in 1939 to restrict political activities of federal employees, as well as certain state and local government employees, and those working in federally funded programs. The main goal of the act is to maintain a federal workforce that is impartial and free from political pressure.

Key Provisions of the Hatch Act

Prohibitions on Political Activities Federal employees are prohibited from running for office in partisan elections, engaging in political campaigning while on duty, or using their official positions to influence elections.

Permitted Activities Employees can participate in political activities when off duty and not wearing their official uniforms. They may also express personal opinions on political issues or candidates.

Impact and Enforcement

The Hatch Act is enforced by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which can investigate violations and recommend disciplinary actions. Violating the Hatch Act can result in consequences ranging from reprimands to removal from federal employment.

Importance

The act aims to ensure that government decisions are based on merit rather than political affiliation, promoting a civil service that is dedicated to serving the public rather than political interests.___

Lutra

The issue is not the tattoo. It’s that for many, his explanation of the tattoo is weak.

The question isn’t what we know. It’s that he says, in the 20 years he’s had the tattoo, he never learned who also used it, and no one else ever mentioned it to him. That is highly improbable. Its not that he has the tattoo, it’s that his justifications so far are implausible.

I agree. It doesn’t matter.

He claims: "For 20 years I didn’t know the thing I had permanently engraved on my body is a Nazi symbol. "

• A. He is a a moron ( technical term) – and Disqualified.
• B. He is a liar — and ALSO Disqualified.

That this story needs deep investigation is illogical. The man has had a Nazi tattoo for 20 years, and said he never knew. There are 2 reasonable possibilities:

Either he is extremely dull – a disqualification from office

or

He is a liar — also a disqualification from office.

To dive into the story, is an effort to support what? a person who’s behavior has disqualified him. Or else, he is undisqualifiable, and that’s a interesting point.

makes sense.

 Anyone else wonder why they would hold off exiting him? It's obvious he's more useful in office than out. But, it's inevitable that he will exit the office sooner than later, and they clearly have a plan to replace him. My nagging thought is. why wait?

…The problem isn’t what Bamboo might decide to do or not decide to do. It’s that they have broad power to do what they want, have demonstrated that already, and whatever they decide, the majority of people who _already bought their product, will just have to accept.

…or a tool that will tell you what you can’t print or materials you’re not allowed to use

… and then tell you that you can’t make it print better on your own … or faster on your own… but sell you a subscription to do the same thing.

and a tool you don’t have to throw away when the evil minions who made it tell you that you have to.

He also called for the death penalty for the wrongly accused central park 5. it’s been 20 years, and he remains the same

devils.

In any problem, every solution that works is a solution, but not every solution is of equal value. In math we use the word "Elegant : Characterised by minimalism and intuitiveness while preserving exactness and precision. " To describe solutions that work well, are concise, and don’t add pain.

Jigsaw puzzle analogy: If you have a puzzle with one piece missing, there are at least a hundred things you can use that will fill that space … sawdust, sand, play-doh, cement, but the most elegant solution, is the puzzle piece made to go there.

With tech, its just more complex- we don’t create solutions in a vacuum ( a world by themselves ), they have to exist and mesh with a preexisting world. We call those limits constraints. And the problem with tech is that often the people who create the technology ignore (don’t care much about) the constraints.

Inventor: Can we do xyz with cameras? Society: And not let them be used for evil? Inventor: Not my problem.

Its easy to solve problems: the cat is sick. kill the cat. people: No that’s awful. inventor: but it did solve the cat problem.

Solving problems in a way that meshes well with the world is not easy. And our inventors are at the moment, shortsighted and greedy.