http406 retweeted
An interesting job opportunity at Jane Street: Low-latency engineering.
Really looking for anyone with experience in low-level systems programming and optimization. No particular programming language background required.
janestreet.com/join-jane-str…
Replying to @RobinDLaws
@RobinDLaws I think y'all are overdue for a segment on Meret Oppenheim!
Replying to @katebullockwrit @GoldenLassoGirl
Homelander being a contemptible psycho is triple-underlined in blood-red; anyone who admires him was...let's say already inclined in certain directions.
Replying to @http406 @KevinPetker
To be clear, I'm not bothered that being a dad is important to you! Rather, it's about what I read from the fact that you volunteer it early. "Oh no, is he obsessed with the nuclear family as a pillar of society?!" even though I've met you, and the answer is no.
Replying to @KevinPetker
It might have to do with the question: If I know nothing about you, is one of the 3 most important questions "Does he have children?"
I don't think it is, and the negative signal may spring from this mismatch.
My Nazidar went off when I saw the statue pic, but this seems to be a legit and quite lovely collection.
The Cultural Tutor@culturaltutor11 Oct 2022🇬🇧
United KingdomConnected via United Kingdom App StoreAccount-level information, not a live location or per-post device.
One piece of art from every decade since the year 1300, in chronological order.
1300-1310: The Bronze Head of Ife, Nigeria
1/83
Replying to @Shoq @davenewworld_2
Industry, science, and government encompasses many institution types. What should we do instead?
Replying to @bobzhang1988 @rescriptlang
我在学习中文,link preview让我我以为了课程是用中文。很可惜呀🙂
It sounds like you're saying we can declare things without justifying them, ie we have a license to believe anything we want whether it's true or not. Nothing is verifiable; everything is arbitrary. This has pretty profound implications, some of them alarming.
It's fascinating how this argument always ends up at the same impasse. I think it's a problem of definition, where "free will" is allowed to have a definition that has no meaningful test or consequences, ie it's not falsifiable.
So you're saying that people who were always damned could have avoided it, ie God could be wrong about them? God isn't omniscient through all space and time?
So you're saying that people who were always damned could have avoided it, ie God could be wrong about them?











