bastion

I always use

if "__main__" == main:
    __main__()

..and earlier in the code:

def __main__():
    while True:
        pass
main = "__main__"

This helps to prevent people from arbitrarily running my code as a library or executable when I don't went them to.

All code needs to have an entry point.

For Python and some other languages, this is the start of the file.

For other languages, this is a special function name reserved for this purpose - generally, "main".

In the first kind of language, the thought process is basically: I have the flow of execution, starting at the top of the file. If I want to make a library, I should build the things I want to build, then get out of the way.

In the other kind of language, the thought process is basically: I am building a library. If I want to make an executable, I should create an entry point they the execution starts at.

The debate is honestly pretty dumb.

Due to the oneness of all things, I refuse to distinguish between library code and executable code. One and Zero are arbitrary limitations.

Yeah, this is it.

What's hacky about an introspective language providing environment to all of the executing code, so that the coder can make the decision about what to do?

It would by hacky if Python decided "We'll arbitrarily take functions named "main" and execute them for you, even though we already started execution at the top of the file."

For C, this is less so. The body of the file isn't being executed, it's being read and compiled. Without a function to act as a starting point, it doesn't get executed.

isn't that just normal usage? ..or, did I just whoosh and you were sarcastically saying that?

My Stockholm buddy never pays attention to me anymore..

they do have a right to their beliefs. ..and we have a right to treat them with equivalent respect to how they would treat us. How you treat others is implicit consent to be treated the same way by them, or by those they trust.

Moreover, we have a right to protect those who seek protection, if we deem that worthwhile, and the protectee does as well.

but they all have a right to think how they do- and attempting to eliminate that thought from the collective mind is both a: fighting from a weak position, and b: even if you manage to eradicate the kinds of thought that you seek to eradicate, you simply leave yourself and those of the next generation susceptible to it.

Instead, you need to incorporate it. ..Like one would with anger. It's not wise to follow anger (and many emotions) directly. But they do indicate a problem that you may need to address. But if you simply try to stamp it out because "anger bad", you'll end up an absolute wreck spreading anger with everything you do.

..except to those who only use it as a tool to recognize when something's wrong.

I think you will be rehabilitated, in time, because you want to control how people think. ..and people who think doing so is a solution are, themselves, a danger to society, and they are susceptible to control by bad actors. Fortunately, they're generally also a self-limiting problem.

I came here for this. with 200 dvds, you put the ripping system somewhere you pass by often. pop one out and pop one in whenever you happen to walk by.

you can rip all features - though that may not include the menus.

You really might want to consider using this:

https://github.com/automatic-ripping-machine/automatic-ripping-machine

Consensus reality can only be agreed upon in segments where there is an overlapping sensorium - so, those forming the consensus can only possibly agree about the segments of reality in which their sensorium overlaps.

But, in effect, the accepted consensus reality requires and is based on a least common denominator of sensory capability - our most physical and repeatable senses and experiences. This precludes the evolutionary process and non-repeatable phenomena, and embeds people in a mentality where certain kinds of growth aren't even possible to intentionally engage in.

Use a three-dimensional tool, get three-dimensional results - and the kind of certainty the analytical mind seeks is definitively a three-dimensional tool.

Fortunately, the only time that truly matters is when we wish to change others minds - and they have a right not to change. Ultimately, there is a (very reasonable) unconscious sense in some people that they live on the brink of a wild, unimaginable chaos, and they're not wrong. For as long as they can, they'll avoid that through excessively-ordered thought and cultural systems (like science is used as, even though fundamentally, the scientific method is valid).

Anyways.. ..do as thou wilt (and live the result) is the whole of the law.

nah, it's more fun this way.

this is how I eat something live and fermented, and I'm all "..meh."

..then next day i see it and experience the closest non-sexual feeling to lust that I've ever had, and have to put more in my mouth.