jeremysmyth

> A being with no time is unable to act.

This assumes a single linear timestream.

If you're the "being", and you're running a simulation of some system, you can absolutely create many parallel timestreams with different initial conditions. You can even return to some point in the simulation and try several intermediate conditions, resulting in different causal outcomes.

The many worlds interpretation would absolutely allow agency on the part of such a "being".

Foley is just not practical for live performance, especially fast reactive stuff like metal clashing.

If the market was aware of them they'd have been picked up already.

Hendrix knew his tools intimately. The comparison proves a point other than that which you make.

Is wikipedia wrong? I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make.

"Runaway" is a term of art here. Redefining it for this conversation is unhelpful.

That's often a big "if".

Leave. Job-hopping is a pattern, not a single event. If I get a candidate with a good track record but one three-month stint, sure I'll query it, but "it wasn't a good fit for me" is a reasonable excuse and a good conversation starter if you can wrap it in a strong story for what _is_ a good fit.

Different supported features make it easier to maintain such a client. Example: Some filesystems notify observers on file change, some don't.

This is often true, but far from universal. Oftentimes there are differences in verb and noun (as with "lead" and "lead"), or transitive vs. intransitive verbs ("seconded"), but occasionally we have problems with two nouns or two verbs with the same form:

"I read that magazine": do I mean regularly, or that I have done in the past?

"The messenger wrote down Lincoln's address": was that his home, or his speech?

The context would need to be quite explicit to work around problems such as this.

Agree completely about it being invasive to ask. My point is that if my directs trust me with (volunteered) info about their most treasured non-work priorities, then they'll be more likely to trust me when I need them to reprioritize. I think we agree with each other; my point is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Put another way: If I clearly don't care about their families, then I clearly don't care about their families.

6-monthly is nowhere near enough to build the sort of trusting relationship that 1-1s are so good for. If you don't know the names of your directs' (or manager's) spouse and kids then your relationship isn't good enough to trust the other with priorities at crunch time.

Assuming "management above greg" are competent (not a stretch in a successful company) then they likely measure Greg on important things like effectiveness and retention. Not being mean in front of his bosses has little to do with that.

Not in the dark ages. Many folks lived in the shadows of ruins made by much more advanced cultures.