A well-written tutorial, but mildly annoying that it starts off with a basic off-by-one error; 9am to 9pm is 13 trips, not 12, so the total trip number is 52 (which indeed is the number of trips shown in the example, not 48 as stated just above).
I interpreted it as the bus starting at 9am and stopping at 9pm, making for 12 trips of one hour each. So the off-by-one error would be in the code generating the possible trips.
In fact, the code as shown only produces 48 trips, instead of the 52 given. I had to actually run it to make sure the Python interpreter in my had wasn't buggy. No idea what code they actually ran to get that result.
They're describing the space in between the notes... so 4 equally spaced notes would have 3 gaps of 1:1:1 . It is indeed a bit confusing, as it says nothing about the duration of the last note, which to my ears would be an intrinsic part of the pattern.
I don't think there's the same feeling of "community" with Go as with other languages, in the same way that there's not really a C community - more a bunch of authors, evangelists and contributors who have a "stake" in the language. That's sort of the point, though. Go doesn't really need much more than it has already. It's a deliberately simple language, with standard format and documentation, a plethora of examples and a comprehensive stdlib. It was designed to serve particular purposes, and it does what it does really well. All it really needs in the way of community is a bugtracker and a StackOverflow section, and I suspect that the a lot of the "Go community are arrogant/negative/dismissive" type complaints can just be attributed to it being the same few people hearing the same complaints about lack of My Favourite Feature X over and over, despite the many blog posts, release notes and list discussions explaining why it's not there.
It interests me that the conclusion of these studies is almost always presented as breastfeeding increasing IQ (or conveying health benefits or whatever). Surely, breastfeeding is the norm, and this headline should be "Bottle feeding linked to lower IQ"?
Reframing it like that makes it seem like parents who formula-feed (because you can pump breast milk into a bottle) are harming their children.
There's already enough pressure on women to breast feed and I'm not sure it's useful to put more on. It'd be better to make sure women can get rapid access to breast feeding consultants.
>makes it seem like parents who formula-feed are harming their children
Well, if the studies are to be believed, then that's exactly what is happening. I completely understand the "pressure on mothers" argument, but I'm not sure that really flies, especially given the (albeit more subtle these days due to legislation) opposite pressure put on mothers by Nestlé and the rest.
I also find the fact that initial breastfeeding rates vary so wildly by country (from 98% in Sweden though to 57% in the US) interesting, and again more likely to do with commercial and social pressures of the same kind than to do with physical differences between mothers worldwide. While-ever the argument is presented as "Breast is Best" rather than "Artificial is Worst", I suspect this will continue.
I suspect that socially progressive Sweden makes it easy to breastfeed while repressive US (Facebook bizarely banned photographs of breastfeeding mothers) doesn't.
Breastfeeding has not always been the norm. At least in the US in the 70s doctors' advice was strongly against breastfeeding and encouraged switching to formula as soon as possible.
Personally, when I first read the spec. for time.Format, I thought "well how bleedin' sensible is that?!" The only thing that annoys me is that it isn't in ISO order (I'd have preferred 2001-02-03 14:05:06 ), but all that you need to remember is "2006-01" and the rest just falls naturally into place. I've seen a couple of "complaints" about this over the last few days, and I just don't understand what the problem is. It's logical and neat.
(03 would make more sense but then there would be issues with 12h vs 24h clock)
then they could even express ISO 8601 week number and the corresponding year. Something which is not possible at the moment. Although more difficult to remember it would be 52 and 1999. (For the 2006 it is 01 and 2006 not distinguishable)
But why would you want to? FSM intended us to use ISO-8601 dates and nothing else. If you disagree, I'll meet you on 18/06/12 at 2:04 to discuss the issue, although you have no way of knowing what date or time that string actually refers to.
We have a perfectly good, unambigious date and time format. It's true that many users are deeply committed to ambiguous formats, but we should at the very least be trying to dissuade them from using them by making ISO formats the default.
I messed up - I meant 2001-02-03 04:05:06 , in which case 2:05PM would be format "4:05PM", (or 16:05) . All that'd happen would be the year and seconds swap order in the "123456" format - but as I said, it's a minor quibble.
when importing dates and time from small systems it always amazes me how they screw them up... do they just ignore known standards for a reason? (favorite was dropping leading zeroes in an otherwise ISO format)
