189 karma · joined September 3, 2019
Second, I would argue that the assumptions are not arbitrary but what most people would hold as true (smartasses and a few more excluded) and even though we have different fields based on what assumptions we choose (fuzzy logic vs classic logic for example) they have all come up with a lot of very usable tools for us for use in the empirical sciences.
Thirdly, "observed" can be argued to both apply to empirical (in the real world) and non-obvious analytical consequences. Sometimes, in analytical science you pull on a thread and see where it leads. The result might surprise you and it is not really wrong to say that you observe the consequence just like you would if you observe a experiment in the empirical sense.
The decisions you make for the company affects the real world (even thought it is in the role of a artificial entity, like a company) and have real consequences on people and the state of the world.
The same in not true for the decisions you make in a board game or computer game.
Of course some might say board games affect the real world but the difference in scale is so large it is negligible.
When working as a support agent I have spent a lot of my time acting as a filter to stop making the end-users go mad with all the requests from the devs and preventing the devs from being flooded with crap reports (of course, some always slip through). That means a lot of time spent on reproducing and testing (and sometimes pointing out where the bug is in the code, even suggesting patches). But very few organisations pay for that knowledge and very few allow agents to muck around for a day with a tricky issue to make sure the devs can fix it without a major hassle.
It is very easy to ask for more information as a dev, and very often it is needed, but a lot of the time it is just pushing the cost to the end-user when a minimal amount of detective work (or even a single quick test) would do the same and save everyone a lot of hassle. I would argue that in a lot of time when we, as devs, ask for more information we do it to push the issue into the future and to save ourself a minuscule of work now, not to have a quicker resolution.
1) It works well in environments where special characters will get mangled in various ways over different platforms. As long as ESC works, vim will do the work just fine. 2) The modes makes it very reliable to use when you have to make specific operations in exact places in text-files. This alone should make it the goto editor for sysadmins where you often have to make just a few character changes to a configuration file and be sure you do not change anything else.
A third reason when starting the work was also that Vim came by default on all out platforms so we knew it existed there and it was a nightmare trying to get approval for extra packages to be installed, but the first two reasons are what keeps me coming back to Vim whenever I need to do some text-file surgery.
Had you included the full quote you would have known why they did not point out the exact location: "We are able to indicate the likely region of the source, but it’s outside the CTBTO’s mandate to identify the exact origin"
If I interpret it correctly it means that they do not know the exact location and other organisations will now have to investigate it further to get the exact origin.
However, I am always amazed how lazy devs are when it comes to purely informational sites as there should be no need to require javascript. Sure, it might help with certain cosmetics but the people who disable javascript rarely care about cosmetics (it is nice, sure, but if you cannot view the site without enabling a bunch of untrusted code to run on you computer then I really must want to visit it to enable it and reload the page).
Hackernews, LWN, arstechnica are all sites that works really well without javascript enabled (ars needs it for comments, but I rarely comment so if I want to I can enable then). Reddit and many more sites somewhat needs to it but you can usually see the interesting bits without it, so if you are invested or a common visitor it is easy to enable the few needed.
If you are directing your content towards the technical community, my advise would be to definitely test it without Javascript, preferably in a text only browser also. It does not need to look super pretty in these modes, but it should work. This is probably also a good foundation to provide the content to groups that uses accessibility software (think blind), but I do not know how well those tools handle JavaScript-dependant content.