You've buried the lede that the core framework does see homosexual behavior as "wrongful sexual desire", "regressive behaviour".

You can accept that or not, but it's disingenuous to equate asking gays never to have sexual or romantic relationships, to asking non-gay people just to curb excess.

That's not an equal imposition, it feels like self-equivocating ad-hominem to read "you're not being targeted here, so can you stop with the victim complex please?"

If you agree that it's better for gay people to never experience intimacy, please just say so, without labelling the concern (that gay people may feel less invited) as ridiculous

Someone who has a thirst for illicit relationship with women must also refrain from doing so.

Forbidding a person from lusting anyone other than spouse whether they like it or not is no different than forbidding a person from having gay desires. And no amount of self identification can label that inhumane.

Under your axioms, it may be equivalent, but I think they're mistaken.

Orientation is not a choice, and is orthogonal to identification.

I believe that same-sex relationships can be as profoundly fulfilling, enriching, and pro-social as heterosexual relationships.

That marrying a straight woman with a gay man is profoundly unfulfilling for both.

And that denying a class of people something so profound, freely enjoyed by everyone else, and which does not harm anyone else, can indeed be seen as inhumane.

You say orientation isn't a choice even though bisexuals at least establish it as their free choice for relationship. Fine. Even if you correctly claim that some people may have an immutable orientation, why would you in your brilliant and far reaching wisdom think it would be inhumane for the same person to be celibate from that orientation? And further think it is inhumane for the person to engage in a relationship of another orientation?

I don't believe for a second any person has this immutable orientation, straight or gay. And likewise, I don't believe it is inhumane for a person to avoid a relationship that is illegitimate. Trying to argue otherwise is like arguing the color blue can also be seen as red.

I am not bisexual, but tried to be. The choice wasn't available.

Have you felt strong attraction for both sexes? If not, have you tried to?

If you tried to feel attraction but could not, you might need help on understanding what attraction is. Until you do, you won't know what love and harm is.

You feel attraction for both sexes, but choose to ignore one?

You choose to behave.

We are here. We do not harm each other. We do not harm other people. I believe God wills it. Peace, Nas.

$ apt install redis-server

$ redis-cli INCR hit-count

Still a huge overkill, and you need to properly set up persistence if you use it this way.

If you know that you'll need a cannon anyway, then sure, go for it, but when all we deal with are flies there's no reason to go that far. You could easily set up this kind of website on servers so simple that getting redis running on them would inflate their complexity quite considerably.

Some friends had to do a hard refresh, now they see it.

> Some people spent hundreds of hours making something better, why would you want to use the result?

This was linked in a Discord discussion about giving in to using modals, maintaining context, in apps.

Derek was languishing:

"Lots of situations where I can't really get around the modal..."

I guess the page doesn't necessarily say how a modal might be avoided, but the anchor with this title seemed strong enough as a "QED" on its own.

Didn't Elon say he was gonna stop those walls?

Heads up that I had to update through the UI twice - first brought me from 1.30.x 1.32.2, then second to 1.32.3.

As secure as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Security at Secure University?

> turns out that nature doesn't make SAAS

E pur si existit.

Quidquid Latin dictum sit does not, it turns out, altum sonatur

That includes private data. Thou critical thinkest too little.

I think you want "thinkest" (2nd person) rather than "thinketh" (3rd person).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thinkest

Thanks. Edited.