Beyond being the first wiki wiki and the model for Wikipedia, the Portland Pattern Repository was a place where many of the principles of Agile software development were hashed out through discussion of the leading members of that movement. It was closer to the discussion pages of Wikipedia, where someone would write on a topic, and another would add more dimension or a counterpoint to what was written. Instead of creating a page of what, say, Extreme Programming was, pages full of discussion of how it was implemented on site or how it could be improved were generated; when it became too large, someone might refactor that page into several different pages, such as XP Principles, XP Practices, XP implementations, and so on.
Elsewhere on the net, there are two sites that convention mandated a warning flag for fear of clicking the rest of the afternoon following interesting things. TVTropes... and C2.
It's Bentley's _Programming pearls_ column from the _Communications of the ACM_, which was collected into a series of books, such as _Programming Pearls_ and _More Programming Pearls_, where you probably saw it.
The only subreddits in my experience that approach this "professional," disinterested standard of moderation are /r/askscience and /r/askhistorians. I know AH has a huge team devoted to enforcing their rules, and it's off-putting to newcomers from other subs but absolutely makes AH what it is. AS takes more of an unapologetic scorched earth approach to keeping focus on relevant discussion.
Not who you were asking, but it's pretty much steeping coarse coffee grounds and cold water in a cup overnight, then filter out the grounds, sort of like cold sun tea. In New Orleans toss in some chicory.
I use the Toddy, which steeps 12oz grounds in 56 fl oz of water, drained through a fuzzy fabric filtering puck; the extract can be refrigerated and diluted with hot water or cold milk.
There are smaller CoffeeSocks (cloth filters) if you don't want to have a carafe of extract in your fridge for two weeks.
The code at that location in the Ethereum blockchain implements a Decentralized Autonomous Organization that takes Ether from participants in exchange for tokens granting them the right to vote on proposals for this specific DAO to fund and the right to receive any benefits from the execution of funded proposals.
Not a lawyer, but a contract requires that all parties must gain some consideration for their entry into the contract. That the blockchain enforces the proposer's "smart contract" without giving material return to the token-holders means that the proposer's claim is unenforceable in a real-life court. No consideration, no (real-world) contract, no breach if some consensus fork emerges.
same ianal disclaimer, but here's the thing, this was built for allowing anonymous contract participation, if you can't participate in a contract without agreement from all parties that'd put the whole smart contract to an end. everyone would be able to seek damages from etherium from transactions they didn't like
I like extended figures, but also sumptuous language and formal rigor. Ah heck, I love each poet for their own quirks and idiosyncrasies. Stephen Dobyns. John Bricuth. Wallace Stevens. Weldon Kees.
These products or services are not guaranteed by Kickstarter or Kickstartees though, so we backers aren't paying for a product alone. In many cases, the value of the product is not commensurate with the money paid. Notch certainly didn't get his $10000 worth from getting a kit and meeting Carmack—he could have picked up a kit after the campaign and met Carmack at GDC or Quakecon or wherever. It's more akin to donating $100 to PBS and getting a tote bag and a $70 tax write-off, without the write-off. As others have said, it's a charitable donation to a cool project from which backers could possibly get some benefits.
