Find a student at a university whose student accounts get access to jstor.

I completely forgot about that game until you mentioned it. Fun times.

There’s not enough information that I’d be comfortable drawing conclusions about this. One person’s past flame can be another person’s one who got away. It’s entirely possible she’s keeping tabs on you online in a method you’re not aware of, but if you don’t know that she’s intentionally moved to be close to you and she hasn’t done anything concerning like made threats or faked a pregnancy or created circumstances that compel you to interact with her against your normal inclinations, I wouldn’t guess stalking. Some people do coincidentally reconnect.

That said, the important question is whether you want to engage with her or not going forward. If you don’t, I wouldn’t lead her on by giving her any more attention. Make a clean break and just tell her you’re not interested. If she reacts with melodrama or stalking behavior, then you’ll definitely know you made the right decision.

If you are interested in possibly pursuing something with her or at least giving her a chance, be honest that you’re a little freaked out about how she’s previously behaved. You shouldn’t proceed with her thinking that the behavior was not concerning. She should respect your comfort levels if she wants a relationship. If she’s dismissive of your concerns and comfort, it’s a big red flag that you shouldn’t engage further.

It might be similar to a song you’ve heard but you’re misremembering the notes of the existing song.

Maybe try playing it for an app that recognizes the song that’s playing and then listen to any songs it guesses might be the song.

I’m going to be disappointed if you didn’t type this out on a command line.

This is less of an issue if you judge everything that isn’t first hand from a known friend or family member as suspect or at least just a waste of time. Facebook used to be a place to talk to people you knew in the real world. You could ignore anything they reposted and still engage with the actual examples of their own experiences that they posted. But now it’s so flooded with ads and listicles and clickbait and video clips that it’s not even worth trying to keep up with the people you actually know.

It’s still not stealing. It’s plagiarism or fraud or any number of other terms, but stealing necessarily requires the deprivation of a limited, rivalrous thing, like money or property. You can’t steal fame or exposure or credit, except poetically. And by that point, the word becomes so watered down that it’s meaningless. You might as well say I’m stealing your life seconds at a time by writing this extra sentence.

The purpose of using the term stealing here is only to borrow the negative moral connotations of the term, but it doesn’t communicate clearly what exactly is happening.

It’s perfectly valid to say you consider it morally equivalent with theft, but it’s not stealing.

I hated it when older people said this to me, so you probably won’t appreciate my perspective now, but you have a vast amount of life ahead of you with a lot more information you can encounter that will contradict what you think you know for certain right now. And you’ll encounter newer information after that that will contradict the previous new truths you felt so enlightened to recognize. You don’t have to listen to me at all of course, but if you think you already know what you believe, you don’t need to make a post here to discuss it. If you’re not open to the thoughts of others, I wouldn’t recommend wasting your time soliciting them. If you’re just looking for affirmations of your pre-existing perspectives, a chatbot might be a better outlet.

I’d recommend taking some sociology, anthropology, and political science courses in college if you’d like to delve deeper into these topics. There’s a lot of scholarship out there on these issues to explore.

Also you can’t just make your own micronation wherever you want. It has to already exist.

This kind of makes the concept of a micronation useless. The point is that anyone can make their own nation with their own rules wherever they are or go. If you have to pick someone else’s, then it’s no different than picking someone else’s recognized nation.

The original meanings of words change over time with usage. Though they have some overlap and some differences (Brazilians are considered Latino but not Hispanic and Spaniards are considered Hispanic but not Latino), the term Latino is generally replacing previous usage of Hispanic, though Latino is likely used more in urban and coastal regions of the US and Hispanic is likely used more in rural and landlocked regions. The usage of either term won’t always be accurate and it will be an exonym used for people who don’t call themselves by that term.

You’re free to say, “I don’t identify as Latino. I’m Mexican.” Or “I’m Mexican American.” if you’re in the US. There will be surveys and polls and forms that won’t have Mexican as a choice though since they use pan-ethnic or continental terms for wide groups of people for categorization purposes. Similar to the fact that white isn’t an ethnicity or a scientific taxonomy. It’s an arbitrary designation with historical, social and political baggage.

If you have to coin a phrase for it, I’d say something like comparative minimization rationalization.

I sincerely appreciate that WSJ thinks their propaganda is so important that I’d want to pay to read it.

It’s possible that they thought the first one didn’t post and kept trying. Sometimes you get a timeout error and return to the editable text with the post button again but the post already went through.

The Superman problem. Main sources of conflict tend to involve depowering, fighting another godlike, or threatening people they care about. Over and over again.

I wouldn’t put a lot of stock into this video. It conflates different things that were deployed separately years apart and used differently. I’m not willing to waste more of my time, but just looking at the rest of the video titles and graphics, the source seems suspect and prone to sensationalizing for attention.

First, the mention of cost is deceptive because Google Suite for Education was free when initially released (as the fundamentals tier is today) for qualifying schools (and basically every public school qualified). Google Suite for Education wasn’t treated by every school as a competitor or replacement to the Microsoft Office Suite. It was complementary. The initial benefit wasn’t Google Docs or Sheets. It was the free student and instructor Gmail and Drive storage accounts, allowing students to save Word documents to the cloud and share them. That Google Docs was a decent alternative to Word was useful when not every student could afford a computer with Microsoft Office and any computer with a web browser could use it, so Macs and PCs were complementary, not competitive, devices.

Google Classroom is different than Google Suite for Education, so conflating them as the video did is odd. Google Classroom is the learning management software like Canvas, Blackboard, or Brightspace. But it’s not really marketed as an alternative to them with the same features because it wasn’t intended to disrupt their markets. Classroom is more appropriate for K12 and the expensive LMSs are more likely to be found in higher ed where institutions can afford the higher licensing fees.

I won’t defend Chromebooks for advanced uses, but they weren’t intended to be full replacements for laptops, so you don’t even have to. The video presents this realization of the limitations of Chromebooks on the part of the educators as a failure of Google rather than the technology needs advancing over time.

Like with anything else when it comes to technology, different needs and use cases will have different solutions. There isn’t one operating system, piece of hardware, cloud suite, or mobile device that is best for everyone’s needs.

even their title is creepy, Human Resources

The only appropriate use of the term is when your cat is talking about you to other cats…

#sapphoandherparkingjob