Nagyman

That feels like a poor statistical evaluation. Why not test along the way with progressive complexity/depth?

Using attendance is a carrot to get students to show up, which leads to better learning outcomes overall - which should be the goal.

Hear, hear. Go back far enough and it's stolen land, insofar as any land can be owned. Entitled folks ranting about "their" property is kinda gross. You were granted that right by society, through ancestral collective agreements and cooperation wrt currency, labour, etc - not some divine right, privilege, or "hard work". Many times, killing or threatening people was how it was acquired not too long ago - and it's not too late for that to happen again (see Ukraine).

There are other ways to organize land-property rights. i.e. leased for some lifetime period, to be returned to the commons thereafter. There is only so much on this planet, and the richest individuals/corporations will gobble it up before too long; then what?

A reasonable type could be defined for outside temperature with predefined bounds, for example in ADA:

type OutsideTempC is digits 3 range -100.0 .. 70.0;

(Edit: others mentioned this)

I too enjoy colourful and shiny, but adfree does not imply purely functional aesthetics.

Can you imagine another possible scenario?

It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable.

> Vulnerable people do and always will exist.

Hear! Hear! Not to mention that children are even more susceptible than adults, and they do not get a choice in their exposure to advertising. There's so much "think of the children" talk to justify intrusions into privacy, but little to be heard (in North America) of exposing them to manipulative marketing tactics _specifically_ designed to wiggle their way into young and adult brains, alike.

I'm strongly in favour of protecting ourselves from advertising in publicly visible areas. Fill it with nature and beautiful things (i.e. art). It's our world, and nobody has a right to our attention.

People will always want free things; that's nothing new! Especially on an Internet that was born free (aside from the cost to connect).

The average "Reddit" business is pretty odd; they want:

* Paying subscribers _and_ advertising revenue

* Free content: posts & comments

* Free moderation: voting & ToS enforcement

* The ability to monopolize said content

* Contributors to continue to pour millions of man-hours to make content for the site and never ask for anything like ad-free viewing, an enjoyable user-experience, tooling, etc.

Social platforms present a difficult balance between the users, contributors, moderators, and business - all within a very hostile internet (in terms of security, spam, etc).

For payment to happen, users do demand significant value to be parted from their $. In Reddit's case, the 3rd party apps are strongly desired because the 1st party app does not meet their needs (users _pay_ for these apps!). Reddit doesn't want to compete on UX, as they're demonstrably bad at it; partially due to lack of skill and due to mismatched incentives.

It seems like they incorrectly assume that they own the community, rather than the other way around. Reddit's primary value is in the content they are _given_ in exchange for hosting & tools - both of which are have significant downward cost pressure (which _should_ trend towards free, given a large enough community).

Reddit is trying to switch their customers from users to advertisers in order to make a profit, which is difficult after years of _generally_ serving users. It is bait and switch at it's finest and most egregious.

The media is reporting what scientists are saying, who thoroughly consider all angles. You don't see it mentioned because it's a hypothesis that was rejected (long ago), with reason.

Hint: The _rate of change_ is critical. Past climate shifts that happened in short order, lead to mass extinction events (like we're participating in now).

If you're truly "really curious" and "not trolling", there's a wealth of information at your fingertips!

This "article" was written to subtlety advertise Kaspersky's security app.

> And, of course, install a security app on your smartphone.

> Optimizing for a pretty looking git history is probably the most foolish thing to focus on

It's not about "pretty"; commits are a form of _communication_. Do we send emails without editing before hitting send? It's a means to optimize for easier reviews through better comprehension of the changes, which also leads to faster reviews. Our colleagues don't want to read a bunch of intermediate commits.

> If you are doing anything that involves rewriting the history you are doing it wrong.

Care to elaborate? What's your general strategy?

As always, it depends. Especially for large PRs, I will go through the effort of rebasing to help the code reviewer so they can view key commits rather than a mile long scroll-fest on the GH "Files Changed" tab. It's about being a good co-worker and facilitating faster reviews.

Exactly how I'd expect a GPT experiment to reply! ;)

We'll hardly be able to tell the difference, if at all. Maybe it doesn't matter as long as the conversation is engaging for the human.

This is most certainly already happening. I find it kind of annoying not to know with certainty whether or not I'm engaging with a Genuine Human(TM) or not.

I'm unsure if it's confirmation bias, but I find myself noticing weird abberations in online comments that don't seem to be ESL related. (edit: it's probably just mobile swipe typing at play)

Loved Heap (Analytics?). I advocated for it while working at my previous employer :) I think we were early customers. At the time, its automatic tracking of all events was a godsend compared to hooking up specific tracking after the fact using GA events.

The pursuit of knowledge is insanely underrated.

> But what you are working on is completely useless for humanity.

You simply can't know that. We don't know what we don't know and we are but babies when it comes to understanding and harnessing the universe. One cannot possibly predict how _fundamental science_ might impact our future.

> We have so many problems where physics is needed (energy production to start with, and then exploring biology), the money should go there instead. Even if it means having less particle physicists the same way we have less philosophes.

This is a false dichotomy; we have the resources for both and more. Perhaps a lack of willpower/grit/political incentives in some arenas, but none of that is insurmountable.

I've heard the idea to zone for one level above the average in an area, to avoid the wild west situation. Doubtful that would fly with some very rich single family neighbourhoods near cities, but perhaps it's too late for the gradual re-zoning and a more blunt approach is necessary.

Aside... where the heck is tech in building housing faster? Where's the prefab and automated assembly? Too many building regulations? Entrenched interests? Incredibly hard problem for large scale engineering?

Sorry, it's in the video, but the oil/coal producers & related polluters who use the apathy to further limit change that affects their profits.

> This practice makes even less sense when we make PRs that once merged are squashed into one commit

Up until the point of merging, other developers reviewing the PR can see your development path, and optionally examine individual commits. In GitHub at least, these individual commits usually make their way into the squashed commit's comments as a bulleted list of changes (after some cleanup), which encourages better final commit messages in general.

Climate change is a scale, from bad to really really bad, and positive change is already happening. Here's some uplifting news in a well articulated video worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw

Apathy is their weapon, and it's very effective.

Django has some of my favourite docs, organized incredibly well:

* Tutorials * Topic guides * Reference guides * How-to guides

https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.0/#how-the-documentation...

[citation needed]

I don't know many such morally-absent folks. Perhaps the perverse incentives in our system mean a bunch of CEOs are quite sociopathic, but on the whole, people seem rather good intentioned to me. The internet certainly serves as a platform for many that would be otherwise shunned IRL, but I don't think they're the general majority...just the majority that decide to voice their opinions. The rest aren't even paying attention - only a small fraction of people have a Twitter account, for example.

Even reddit, which can be anonymous, is filled with good discourse, assuming you avoid certain subreddits, and sort by top. Moderation goes a long way to mimicking our more natural IRL tendencies to turn down the assholes. Twitter and Instagram generally lack those tools, so the assholes can be louder and _seem_ more prominent than they are.

You can just submit a blank ballot.

https://www.quora.com/As-voting-is-compulsory-in-Australia-a...

This came to mind for me as well, as it's something I landed on in the past for managing UGC. The primary benefits being a decent api and administrative interface for moderation. It's certainly not perfect, but there's not a lot of competition in the space that I could find. I think most devs lean towards DIY.

It is mentioned if you expand the "In case you've never used them, here's a comparison." element.

It's also a monumental shift for the workforce. Many of the problems people have WFH are because we've WFO for so long! Social culture has incredible momentum - so much so that it took a pandemic to get the ball rolling in the direction promised by home PCs decades ago.

A transition like this takes time. That consideration seems to be absent from arguments one way or the other, but I'm happy to hear them so we can smooth out the transition to _whatever_.

> then that incentive disappears, and we can start exploring other business models

At times it feels like we're stuck in a local maxima. Momentum plays a part and it can take a significant shift (e.g. from privacy abuses and shifting expectations), before we bother to try alternatives. This _takes time_, and technology moves faster than policy, business, or culture seem capable of tracking.

IIRC, it was a permanent change for everyone. This most recent change re-adds the ability to see counts.

I have a Dell monitor which has a built-in USB-C hub. I experience similar issues when plugging in my MacBook Pro - the monitor part works fine, but the keyboard/mouse usually takes a few attempts at plugging in ("docking"). Might not be your laptop so much as Dell's USB-C dock acting up.

Maybe they see the writing on the wall and they are conceding that they don't _need_ website visit tracking at the individual level. Instead, just mapping individuals into _categories_ is sufficient for targeting.

They'll categorize websites (as they already do) and put you into that category, but forego tracking exactly which website/page put you there. The specific page is probably more granularity and privacy invading than they need to continue printing money. Think Netflix movie categorization; who cares which movie I watched put me into the Norwegian-Horror-Romance-Action category, as long as my preferences are known, targeting will continue working.

While it's great for debugging how someone got into a bucket, all that's really needed is the bucket, not the raindrop. I'm certain they'd like to continue knowing those buckets though, so getting ahead of that is critical to their business.

Can we stop attributing technology choices to laziness? Sounds like a _lazy_ evaluation and presumption of someone else's motivations.

More seriously, there are far more folks familiar with browser frontend technologies than the myriad of desktop frameworks, rife with their own challenges.

AFAIK, it's common to use the capital of a country when referencing government decisions in news articles. e.g. Washington, Beijing, Ottawa, Delhi, Brussels, etc.