I'm sorry to hear that. No, your reply wasn't too negative considering it's a very serious loss. Yes, as you said, we underestimate the power that small sounds have, and that we, as professionals, are losing this accidental feature from our tooling.
275 karma · joined May 28, 2015
I personally hate the “it’s temporary” excuse we developers often have.
It’s important to know who’s writing: The article is not an objective list of facts. They did not reach to the publication for comment. Some nuances might have been ironed out. This is true regardless of the political side talking.
It's a statically-typed functional language from the ML family, which is a huge deal. It implements a completely different approach to code, even if it looks similar.
It's currently academical, "ivory tower," but in my opinion it will trickle into industry. Someone described ReScript as ECMAScript 2030.
This works which most language supersets. My point was that it was a trial and error way of discovering that this was not so.
Seeing it as a separate language, I agree that the statement doesn't really makes sense.
Ever since, I wonder why long shell scripts are needed. Why do some developers still write programs like these? What advantages shell have?
The meetings are for "what" vs "how."
I'll focus on the technical career stream, even though that's not that clearly defined in my company.
"When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site — the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content."
To illustrate Benford's Law, Dr. Mark J. Nigrini offered this example: "If we think of the Dow Jones stock average as 1,000, our first digit would be 1.
"To get to a Dow Jones average with a first digit of 2, the average must increase to 2,000, and getting from 1,000 to 2,000 is a 100 percent increase.
"Let's say that the Dow goes up at a rate of about 20 percent a year. That means that it would take five years to get from 1 to 2 as a first digit.
"But suppose we start with a first digit 5. It only requires a 20 percent increase to get from 5,000 to 6,000, and that is achieved in one year.
"When the Dow reaches 9,000, it takes only an 11 percent increase and just seven months to reach the 10,000 mark, which starts with the number 1. At that point you start over with the first digit a 1, once again. Once again, you must double the number -- 10,000 -- to 20,000 before reaching 2 as the first digit.
"As you can see, the number 1 predominates at every step of the progression, as it does in logarithmic sequences."
There could be a correlation of it being a pivotal article and having a paid business model.