The_Colonel

Please don't take it as a personal attack, but you're 28 and from the way you're talking, it sounds like kids are not a priority for you right now, so apparently you want to do certain things before getting them. Many people who end up child-less are just like you - they don't actively decide "I'd rather game than have children", they just make excuses and postpone until it just doesn't work out at all.

One thing which I kind of regret about having children relatively late in my life (although I wasn't that much older when I had my first than you are now) is that I won't be there for them (and potentially grandchildren) as long as I wish I would be, esp. in good health. A depressing way to think about this is that every year I've enjoyed the freedom before them is a year I'm not going to spend with them.

I wrote "quite easy to define" and they are, esp. in comparison to date/time. JSON messing it up notwithstanding.

It's of course a trade-off in how far you want to go with special types.

Booleans and numbers have extremely common use cases, moreso than date/times.

But perhaps more importantly, they are quite easy to define. Date/time is a susprisingly complex topic with many variants (date, time, datetime, local/relative date/time, point in time, offset-based, timezone-based...) with all of them being quite important. The spec to define date/time types would likely be longer than for the whole rest of JSON, and you still wouldn't be able to correctly interpret the date/time from the spec alone, since timezone data/designations are dynamic.

Now the question is - what value does this extra complexity bring? I'm not saying there isn't any, but it doesn't seem to justify the cost.

> It will look funny to many people but they will be able to interpret it.

You're still approaching this with the background knowledge of what this is. If you've never seen this, you can only guess, and there are a couple of options.

I've been terminally online for the better part of the last 2 decades, yet I've seen this way of writing for the first time only ~5 year ago or so, and I still remember simply not knowing what it is. The first reaction is that it's simply a typo - the author mistyped - the dot should have been a digit or perhaps not be there at all.

It's not a binary choice. I don't think if Crockford chose a slightly larger subset of JavaScript for JSON (such as JSON5), it would hurt its adoption.

What an extreme reaction. Many people would not be able to parse it since they've never seen a number written in this way, but you immediately write them off as assholes. Wow.

Single quotes are useful for string contents containing many double quotes (e.g. XML).

> Well what's more readable, .8675309 that is understood to have an implicit zero

Is it universally understood? I think it's a US / English thing. In my country I've never seen numbers written in this way and many people would not "parse" it mentally as 0.8675309

Just store the ISO9601 date/time in a string. No need for special support on the format level.

Yes, the baby is in fact not feeding most of the time. You can easily find several hours a day during which you can bond with the baby, I'm pretty sure your wife is going to be supportive in this effort.

(It's our second kid)

> When are they bonding?

All that time in between the breastfeeding? Somehow, this question does not compute for me (as a father of a breast-fed 8-month-old baby).

> this conscious decision is not cost free for the future of the relationship with the child

Same for the relationship with the wife, they remember.

> When you’re poor, it’s not changing what you can do with your life. You were never able to go to dinner or on vacation.

When you're poor and child-less, you can still sleep in on weekends, watch Netflix/game all day/night or whatever other (cheap) hobby you have. It's even possible to do a decent amount of travelling on a very tight budget these days (low-cost airlines, couchsurfing...). All things considered, today is not a bad time to be a poor person in terms of being able to have fun.

I think even for middle class, the main cost is actually the time rather than the monetary cost.

But I do agree that opportunity cost is the right framing.

> "Betray" isn't really the right term, the west were clear from the start that they were in this to bleed Russia and were only planning to provide enough weapons to keep the conflict simmering in a bloody fashion.

With which mr. West have you talked about it that he's been so clear?

As far as I know, "the West" is a collection of many countries, many decision/opinion makers. There's no singular motivation for supporting Ukraine, and there are many other, less cynical motivations than what you insinuate.

> when they're generally thought to be the cleanest syntaxes

That might be true for academics. But most engineers don't consider ML syntax to be the cleanest, since most don't know any ML language.

I don't think OP implied that they loathe all aggregated statistics. They likely loathe a subset which was implied with like this

> How they achieve that using Lego is beyond me.

I'm so confused by this sentence. What does the real thing have to do with Lego?

Yes, but aligning the team culture is in theory also a one-time thing. And this is IMHO necessary in any case, no matter if you decide to enforce this alignment using auto-formatters or not.

The point where this is the same is "everyone just needs to agree on a common style".

> 80% of a solution is better than 0%

I'm not sure if it's 80% or rather 20%, I guess it's a POV / arbitrary number.

In any case, this is far from a solved problem, while I often see in these type of discussions the idea that auto-formatters solve formatting/code style problem. "Just use black" while dismissing the idea that the rest has to be tackled informally / culturally.

This:

> "Any proposal that requires everyone to just is not a solution, because everyone will not just"

invalidates this:

> A real solution is to have the team agree on a shared style guide, then enforce it with a linter and formatter.

... since the "team" is everyone. It's basically the same problem.

The other issue is that linters/formatters don't "solve" all formatting/stylistic choices. Most formatters, fortunately, still allow you to choose where you do line breaks for example, since they do matter and shouldn't be arbitrary.

> you're a subordinate, face is only lost among peers and superiors

I disagree. Losing the respect of your subordinates is IMHO worse than of your superior.

> If you find yourself working under such people, don't bother giving feedback, start polishing your resume.

Yeah, I'm not going to change a job just because one of my superiors is insecure (and the other things are good). This all-or-nothing mentality is just thought-stopping.

A bit off topic, but the proliferation of maps and GPS is not celebrated enough IMHO. It's such a mind shift regarding freedom of movement - as a kid (1990s), going somewhere new carried a strong risk of getting lost, so we rarely ventured far. Even if we had maps, they were not detailed enough, and it was difficult to figure out where you are exactly. Many from my parent's generation (now in their 60s, 70s) never learned to work with maps (with or without GPS) which limits them to travel alone only to places they already know. There are also other factors (ability to call for help, looking up your travel connections etc.), but IMHO the detailed maps + GPS is the biggest factor in this mindshift where travelling/exploring anywhere is easy and accessible to anyone.

Right, that's exactly what separates Blender from e.g. GIMP.

What a useless comment.

When you use decades, it is implied that the precision is rough, interpreting it as exactly 30 years ago is just bad faith.

OP is correct - in the timespan between 2 and 3 decades ago, MS / IE implemented its full range of anti-competitive practices and at least partially through them became even more dominant than Chrome is today.

Go's success is there only because of Google, not for any technical merit. Without Google, Go would be a forgotten niche language.

The nuance here is that it's not the diplomats saving the peace (they obviously can't make such offer on their own), it's the NATO countries dramatically changing their strategic posture (willing to become economic vassals) and diplomats communicating the change. Putin would likely agree to such proposal since it would still further his goal of Russia becoming a dominant power on the continent.

This nuance is important, because sometimes people blame "weak diplomats" etc, but it's not their fault, they can't find equilibrium of strategic interests where there's none.

> Some people just want to fight. As a goal by itself.

Can you make some examples of war where fighting itself was the primary goal?

> that definition would make every action 'rational'.

As mentioned above, goals themselves are not something we can evaluate as rational or not.

But given you have a goal, you can question whether the actions you undertake to achieve that goal are rational. Let's say you want to start a family and want to buy a house. Going into a casino and throwing money into the slot machines is not a rational way to achieve it, esp. since there is plenty of information available explaining in painstaking detail that this won't work.

TBH I don't care if it was Clausewitz or someone else who said that.

It's still a useful way to look at how the world works.

Goals are not rational. Neither Putin's goal of controlling Ukraine nor Ukraine's desire for independence are rational, they're subjective preferences.

You can ask - was Putin's decision to invade Ukraine rational given his values, priorities, risk aversion, willingness to bear the costs and information he had? Apart from the last, they're all subjective and thus it doesn't make sense to judge them as (ir)rational. The last one is objective, but having wrong information is not irrational either.