r-w

You change it. Better to change a nice solution than to keep adding small chunks to an already complex one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it

It seems like your problem isn’t with OOP, but with generics. (You would like Go.)

Ah, GoDaddy: a name that is much easier to take seriously.

That’s a pretty big claim. Source?

I love how this conversation is becoming a model of itself! People proposing solutions in contrast to others, some taking their own advice and others falling into the same trap O.P. brought up in the first place!

Not everyone knows how to use non-verbal communication, either. Hopefully most of the people discussing this get that non-verbal is Plan A; and careful re-wording is Plan B, for when Plan A falls through.

Why give anyone the opportunity to wave away your ideas? :) I don’t think the other person should be respected at your own expense.

I mostly agree. But I think making it explicit that sshd is your idea and the implementation is their idea does a lot to make both parties territorial and perhaps oppositional.

I also prefer taking the altruistic approach in most cases. But it occurs to me: if the obvious solution were the best one, would there even be a problem to discuss? ;)

i.e., “Or not?”

> who cares what jerks think of you?

I do, as their coworker who has to put up with them!

But is the contrast between what is “standard” and what is actually used? Or is it between what’s been informed by practice and what’s being suggested in theory?

Perhaps presenting the listener as being “out of line” with some form of expectation isn’t the best way to put them at ease. In fact, ideally neither person should feel out of line in a mutual interaction like this.

Totally agreed. I think one important aspect of your suggestion is that it avoids creating a territorial interaction: no association is made between the speakers and their respective ideas. Each is free to consider one idea or the other, without feeling like they have to identify with & defend “their idea”.

Honestly, @carlmr’s answer is the shortest & sweetest of them all. The most important thing is to avoid associating your idea with yourself and their implementation with themselves. As soon as that happens, you’re opening yourself up to a territorial interaction.

> Each time the button is clicked, the closure in boot runs in entirety but if you open your browser's devtools on the iframe, you should see that only the necessary DOM nodes are seeing updates:

Isn't that still radically inefficient?

You think the only reason people like aesthetics is to feel superior?

Why are you comparing Emacs to primarily modal editors? This discussion is not about those.

What a coincidence that this article pops up just after a daylong fast for Yom Kippur…

This is really interesting! I was fascinated by the website, joined the Telegram group… and of course got kicked for not sending a message in 60 seconds. Is there any chance I could email you my username and be re-added?

This is millions of “spaces” we’re talking about. Advertisers can’t vet that many videos, and neither can Google. So they demonetize.

Interesting, seems like a worthwhile read in this context. Any particular suggestions?

Wasn’t clear to me at all. A scalar is any kind of singleton number, but it doesn’t exist in contrast to boolean values; rather, it includes them. “Exists on a spectrum/scale” or “is a real number” would be universally understood ways of communicating that particular meaning.

The notion of “fuzzy logic” is especially relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

The word you’re looking for is “reflective”, not “homoiconic”.

Or we’re surprisingly bad…

Define “use”. I have several email accounts that I hardly ever use, and it’s the same case for many of my peers. Most people over 45 I know have email accounts they do check regularly. Yes, more young people are aware of and connected to modern technology; but I would argue that older people who use it, e.g., for their jobs, make much more substantial use of it.

I’m not seeing that. Are you by any chance on mobile?

Your results may be bad for the first week, but the better results you get later on have everything to do with Google’s long-term user-base.

It has nothing to do with the number of products, it’s what they do with their influence over the market. See AMP and incompatibilities between Gmail & IMAP, for example.

If their goal was to minimize participation and competition, then they certainly succeeded. I don’t think being unfamiliar with something should ever be outright disqualifying.

Post it when you do! Might be worth making it open-source so not only one person has to do it :P

Things get kind of pixelated for me around page 123. Anyone else?