> Also... since no one else has mentioned it yet and it's not really worth its own comment... this is a wildly better name than "Wii". The Wii was a success, but I'd say in spite of the name.
What happens if multiple people from the same household want to use local multiplayer on different screens? That's the only case where the one-to-one relationship between console and portable screen breaks down.
But they don't need to have all the buttons or even be ergonomic; they just need to be convenient enough that there's nothing else that provides the same functionality or better. Everything else just affects the quality of the experience, but that determines whether anyone even buys it.
Not sure whether Iota, Jot, and lambda calculus can be executed instruction-by-instruction, but generally speaking, wouldn’t a Turing-complete language with just two instructions allow for even greater throughput than BrainFuck does?
Interesting to see that none of my planes have been stamped yet, and yet most of the ones I catch have been stamped multiple times before. Are more people joining the site / creating new planes than catching and stamping existing ones? Is there a higher chance of catching a plane that’s been stamped more times?
I don’t have a very in-depth understanding of dynamic analysis myself, so this may be somewhat of a simplistic question: Why not just resolve to the latest version of each library/module present on the system during the first pass through the list of dependencies?
That’s another question. I’m just saying that I was a bit surprised that people were reacting so strongly to something that had been there all along but that they had not bothered to look for. If they really cared so much, wouldn’t they have checked for it themselves rather than waiting for someone else to find it?
Yes, but that can’t be done preemptively, see? Anyone I meet could be anything—any religion, any race, even a neo-Nazi for all I know—and it wouldn’t be evident from their appearance. So should I just avoid all jokes that are at anyone’s expense? Isn’t it better to be unafraid about what I say and to apologize if a joke I made was at the expense of someone in the room and they were offended by it? I never intend to offend anyone, but I’ve also had quite a few good-natured laughs at others’ expense without any intention of demeaning them. I don’t see anything wrong with that if I apologize once someone is offended and then avoid making jokes at their expense around them.
I’m not sure you can just assume that five-versus-one is the same dilemma as four-versus-none, since that might not be how people value the lives of others.
It says more about the person who says it that they think that will cheer you up, though if you actually reacted like that it would say more about you.
The real question is this: should an entire company have to adjust to a few people’s sensitivities, or should those few people have to either develop a thick skin or switch teams?
I get that the joke was made in bad taste, but why imply that it trivialized sexual assault? That’s either disingenuous or ignorant.
Avoiding funny jokes because they might offend someone won’t teach people anything. It’ll just make them feel like they have to suppress what they actually want to say.
Most people have a thick enough skin to get over it, so the people around them don’t all have to adjust to their feelings.
It’s a shitty joke. Just move on. It shouldn’t be the company’s business to legislate whether jokes are in good taste. If just one person is uncomfortable on that team, they should just be put on another team, no questions asked. An entire team shouldn’t have to adjust their speech for just one uncomfortable person, especially when just one slip-up prompts that incident being shared company-wide in a massive and petty shaming attempt.
Haven’t we known this for a while? I don’t see it as being all that scandalous if it’s available right on the history page along with everything else Google keeps track of.
Atheism is the lack of a religious ideology. It’s strange to assign an ideology to a group of people simply because they reject all religious ideologies.
I don’t think that model takes ignorance into account. You would be unhappy if you knew you were doing a disservice to future generations, but you might accidentally do something stupid that screws things up for generations to come.
Although I kind of wish Apple hadn’t baked speech recognition into their parsing algorithm. Not everything I say will be in their dictionary, and there are times I’d rather just be able to type the query in myself than have Siri misunderstand it and then have to manually retype the parts that were misinterpreted.
Found this while Wikipedia-ing the history of HBO. Ended up learning some interesting stuff about satellite broadcasts and the history of TV service payment models—arbitrary, I know, but enlightening nonetheless. Enjoy!