kprybol

I'm kind of OK with this. Yea I think that there are a ton of really cool/interesting things that could be done with the touch bar, but given that it serves the important role of being the power button and controlling user access via TouchID, I really wouldn't want to risk either of those functionalities even if it means less "fun".

Oh, almost forgot! (can't edit so I'll reply to myself) - there's no way for you to set a fixed seed using the built in random number generator. REALLY hope you don't need to reproduce your results because it's essentially impossible. Again, it's technically possible to implement your own Lehmer random number generator within Excel and rely on that and again VBA is always and option, but let's be realistic. The people who understand the need for setting fixed seeds, can implement their own random number generator, and/or are comfortable actually programming aren't going to using Excel anyway (willfully at least)

The other reason to not use Excel for stats? It's virtually impossible to reproduce your work unless you documented every step in some other format. Excel is easily one of the worst tools you can use if you ever need to refer back to/redo your original work at any point in the future or if you need to be able to validate your result with any confidence. Yea I know there are some people who are freaking magicians with VBA who can "fix" many of the problems listed, but that doesn't absolve excel of its statistical sins.

The problem isn't limited to the high school students in Palo Alto. The 'Stanford Duck Syndrome' (calm outward appearances/above water, flailing violently out of sight/under water) is a relatively well publicized issue. So much so that Stanford has official pages dedicated to the problem. http://web.stanford.edu/dept/CTL/cgi-bin/academicskillscoach...

>just like how in the southern U.S., every soda is called "Coke" even if it's a Pepsi.

Blasphemy. Atlanta can have their "Coke". Us North Carolinians drink Pepsi (born 1893 in New Bern, NC).

And to your point:

>The latter costs roughly 5 times more than the former! Either this is unbridled hyperbole... or else money is no object at your company, and it's weird that you were evaluating GitLab in the first place.

Never underestimate the ability of enterprises to over pay for a product despite the existence of cheaper, and arguably better solutions.