That’s nice, but what I really want a car to do is drive me where I tell it to, so I don’t have to pay attention to any of that stuff.

I agree. Uproars like this reflect an irrational fear that rewarding someone for one reason also rewards everything else about them, including stuff we don’t approve of. We see a ton of crowd-sourced demonization nowadays. Yes, you cured cancer but you also liked the wrong tweets, so no Nobel Prize for you, spawn of Satan.

Stallman earned his position of influence as a voting board member through his software-related achievements, not his sexual attitudes. Removing him for the latter absolutely WOULD take away from those achievements. Paying lip service in the report doesn’t change that. In another era when homosexuality was illegal, Alan Turing was removed from his position in British intelligence because of being gay. The two situations aren’t identical, but they don’t have to be. The point is that they both earned their positions, and taking away what they earned because of unrelated moral disapproval is wrong. This isn’t a defense of any of Stallman’s attitudes - I’m saying no such defense is necessary or relevant.

Oh that makes sense - apparently bpy.ops has a current context that the transform acts on. Instead could you move the transform call outside of the loop after establishing the first block as the context? That’s how I would instinctively do it, to avoid checking i in every iteration when I know it can only be true once. Totally minor critique lol.

I’m not a Python programmer but just intuitively it seems like if i==0 will make the first block fall right after it’s created. Shouldn’t it be if i==25? Or does it work because the loop has time to generate all the other blocks before the first block has time to hit the second one?