I'm not sure if it's the same thing, but usually, holding shift while right clicking enables the context menu in Firefox.
33 karma · joined December 26, 2015
They're slowly getting pulled in kicking [1] and screaming [2]. I just installed the mainline arm64 version of Archlinux onto an Orange Pi Zero Plus, and I was pleasantly surprised that I only had to compile one out-of-tree driver (rtl8189fs for WiFi).
[1] Not all are the common LaTeX macros. See http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/unicode-input/
Sure it is. It's true that for certain systems, you can derive one from the other so in that sense they might be "just different notations" for the same physics (I'm disregarding non-conservative forces, which aren't really considered in fundamental physics). But the Lagrangian formalism really consists of two parts: Hamilton's principle and a choice (postulate/guess) of Lagrangian (or Lagrangian density). When we say that Lagrangian formalism is more general than Newtonian mechanics, it means we can describe physics using the Lagrangian which we can't get to via Newton's laws. For example, you would be hard-pressed to derive general relativity from Newton's laws, but if you start with the Einstein-Hilbert action, you can derive Einstein's field equations.
> A better example of a fundamental law would be action-reaction or something.
This is another example where the Lagrangian formalism is more general. In this case, a translation-invariant Lagrangian implies conservation of (canonical) momentum. But in more complex systems, Newton's third law might may fail when canonical momentum is still conserved (the prototypical example is the Lorentz force law).
> Using Lagrangians to derive it then begs the question "but why must electrons obey the Lagrangian?".
This isn't circular as much it is one less level of indirection. It's like if you say the reason a dropped object accelerates to the Earth is gravity, you have just shifted the question to "why must gravity behave as an inverse squared law". You can go further and say that Newtonian gravity is not fundamental, but is an approximation of from general relativity, where the dropped object isn't really accelerating. Again, the question is shifted to "why is general relativity described by the Einstein field equations". At each level of reduction you describe one phenomenon by something more fundamental. That you don't have a further explanation doesn't logically preclude that it's more fundamental.
I'm curious how much this applies say pre-WWII era (before the majority of goods were produced far from their sale). Maybe I've got some Hollywood-influenced idea of what life was like, but I would think a small town would have some sort of a general store where refunds would be no big deal (within reason). This would probably be less of an imposition when the store owner knew the majority of the customers. Even the big-city department stores would probably take back merchandise, since there wasn't exactly any concept of opening a shrinkwrap or a restocking fee. Unless you had something like a tailored dress, I don't see why a late 19th/early 20th century American store wouldn't have a liberal return policy.
Also, in terms of shipping returned items, I believe that the "money back guarantee" was a major selling point of catalog-based retailers such as Sears Roebuck, specifically to compete with local department stores.
Someone with actual historical knowledge should weigh in, but it seems to me like the mid-20th century was the first cultural shift in return policies, and the present decade is a shift in the other direction.
I didn't say that this is a normative viewpoint in engineering or whether I personally agree with it. As you can see from other commenters, many do hold this view. A sometimes opposing philosophy, however, is “release early, release often” which many open source projects adhere to.