No worries, your reply was a concise clarification of the issue and terminology, and a reasonable answer; I didn't perceive it as arrogant in the least.
OP here; I didn't perceive it as arrogant either. I think the "arrogant" accuser might have a point about some stuff I see on HN, but this reply to my post just isn't it.
I had a very similar experience. I stick to a 10 keyless keyboard (no numpad) but I gave up on the trackball. I use a wireless trackpad now because I ended up with pains in my thumb after a couple years of the trackball. I could probably have used a better quality trackball but the selection is/was limited.
vim support in IntelliJ is pretty good these days so that's a huge help too. I had to abandon emacs and my claw movements early in life...
I think the point was that users implicitly want content from these labels based on the music they look for. Not that they're looking for music from those labels or are aware of which labels produce which music.
I'm pretty sure as long as you drove around in the right car and lived in the right house while you neglected your family, society would still see you as successful.
I wish it weren't the case but it seems to be reality.
At a superficial level you would appear to be successful, as anyone who doesn't know you just sees the house and the car. As soon as anyone heard that you spend all your money on yourself and let your family eat scraps, I think most people would hate you. So the question is, do you care more about what some random stranger thinks about you or what people who actually know you think about you?
If your family ate foie gras from golden plates, people would hate you, too. Success and approval are two different things. Someone may think that you are successful, but using that success in an irresponsible manner.
I think it is just OPs wording that got me arguing this point: "a man's success in life". Not a man's success in gaining material wealth. The argument I was trying to make (rather poorly it seems) is that people don't normally measure life success solely by the number in your bank account when you die, there are other measures as well.
Life sucks sometimes but it doesn't matter whether you merge or rebase in the scenario you describe, you need to test the combined version of the code. You can't just assume it is still working and whoever comes second needs to shoulder that responsibility.
> Life sucks sometimes but it doesn't matter whether you merge or rebase in the scenario you describe, you need to test the combined version of the code. You can't just assume it is still working and whoever comes second needs to shoulder that responsibility.
Sure you do. But you're missing the fact that testing is in no way even remotely guaranteed to catch every error. If it did then projects that have tests would never have bugs, and that doesn't seem to even approximate the world we live in. (Why did I need to point this out though? Is this not obvious?)
Sorry for being a bit vague but I didn't mean to imply there were tests. I meant test in the sense of "do whatever you did to check correctness" in the first place. You change the code, you should do that process again or at least some approximation of it. Automated tests make it pretty easy, manual testing makes it doable, stepping through with a debugger or dumping printing statements makes it painful and error prone.
Many codebases don't have tests at all, most have terrible tests, and under no circumstances do I think they magically prevent all bugs. But I do think obnoxious coders who assume they can just merge and move on without checking the correctness have a special place in hell.
Easier? How so? If a rebase of a branch isn't successful you just reset back to the commit you rebased onto, and continue work on your old pre-rebase branch.
Not so fast. By the time you rope in the notions of absolute zero, entropy, and Maxwell's demon, you could kick up enough dust to keep a whole stable of grad students busy.
These debates are less about a clear and present problem, than a mode of inquiry asking to look again at something "familiar" in a different way.
Partly I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I'm sure there is a good answer... Can you give me an example of a useful, positive contribution that metaphysics and/or philosophy (I confess I don't know what the distinction is between them) have contributed to these topics?
For example, ancient Greek philosophers made many speculations about the nature of atoms, and in some ways their guesses were correct, but I don't think that speculation was especially fruitful. But their advances in geometry and number theory were tremendously productive.
> For example, ancient Greek philosophers made many speculations about the nature of atoms, and in some ways their guesses were correct, but I don't think that speculation was especially fruitful.
In terms of finding the actual answer (at least to the extent that we know the answer), it probably wasn't; but, in terms of suggesting that the question was one that had an answer, I think it was enormously fruitful. Leon Lederman's wonderful book "The God particle" persuasively (if perhaps slightly tongue-in-cheek?) argues a very direct intellectual through-line from the Greek analyses to (then-)current particle physics.
(Having said this, my personal feeling is that philosophy has done its part by expanding the scope of scientific inquiry, but probably doesn't have much to add to modern-day scientific discourse; but, then again, I am a scientist, and so am pre-disposed to believe in the primacy and importance of my discipline.)
> I'm not sure about straightforward but, as an example, temperature seems simpler than colour.
At least physically, this seems wrong to me. Temperature is an emergent property of systems—there is no such thing as the temperature of an isolated particle—whereas (as spectral analysis shows) even individual atoms have colour.
I'm not sure about Clash but there are often game mechanics that kick in to heavily multiply your rewards. Spending $X gets you Y in game value but spending $2X gets you 5Y. And then it can compound with follow up offers targeted at the player/whale which may not be generally available.
So I don't doubt your figures but there's probably a "one week whale" trajectory that's built into it to give quick gratification for something like $250,000. Still seems outrageous but they can discount digital goods differently than retailers can.
