Mole
Ant
Pedestrians have the right of way. Most of the other hills are survivable.
I had someone speed up to scare me and call me a bitch when I was using a zebra crossing… he wouldn’t have even been close if he was going the posted speed.
Except where trams are involved. Those have a license to kill.
Where I live, it’s the law that on crosswalks you have to stop to let them cross, doesn’t matter how fast you’re going.
“catsup” is the better spelling; “ketchup” looks about as proper as “nite lite”
Anything with cats is inherently superior
All dates should be formatted according to ISO 8601 standard (YYYY-MM-DD).
Months should be adjusted so September, October, November, and December are the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th month respectively (so the literally meaning of the names accords with their actual meaning).
Not cleaning your kitchen knife after sharpening is trashy and contaminates your food with metal shavings.
February should only have 1 r
Having devices require a USB-C charger might be great for small devices, but it’s awful for laptops. That thing is so flimsy it’s only a matter of time until it starts having faulty contacts. I’ve had one for a year and now it connects/disconnects everytime I touch the cable. Gimme back my huge Dell barrel jacks 😭 😭 😭
Grab a thin needle or piece of wire, thin enough to easily insert into the USB-C port, and scratch all of the dirt and lint out of it. Always point the needle towards the outer surface so you don’t scratch the electrical contacts in the middle.
There is often a surprising amount of junk inside even if you can’t see it from the outside, and that can greatly affect the connection quality.
My phone recently had a similar issue where it would only charge if the cable was inserted in a specific way, and any movement would cause it to stop charging. The cable also wasn’t really held well even though it looked like it was fully inserted. I cleaned out the port even though I couldn’t see anything inside, and managed to pull out a bit of dust anyway. And now my phone no longer has charging issues and holds on to the cable much better.
USB-C unfortunately just seems to have a design that makes it very easy for dust to get stuck in it, while also having a relatively low tolerance for foreign material buildup before the connection quality gets affected, making this a quite common issue.
Thanks for the tip I’ll try that ! I’ve had the same problem on a tablet, but there it was definitely caused by the port being bend out of shape (it won’t be horizontal) so I had assumed it was the same problem on the laptop. But I’ll try cleaning it to see if it fixes it ! I assume a toothpick or something else or wood or plastic would be better than metal ?
A wooden toothpick is probably a bit too thick. You’d want something thin enough that it can be inserted without touching the electrical contacts. If you do have something plastic then that’s probably better, but if you do the cleaning when the device is off the USB port should be unpowered and there shouldn’t be a risk of causing a short, and modern USB ports are quite well protected again shorts anyway so it’s very unlikely to cause damage just by being conductive. You mainly want something that is long and thin enough to get all the way to the bottom of the port without having to apply any force. If the only things you have that are long and thin enough to reach the bottom of the port without having to be forced in are made of metal, then that’s still a safer option than jamming something too thick into the port that can deform the center contacts.
Thanks for the tip ! ❤️
Every barrel jack a different size and voltage.
After further reflection, the hill I’ll die on is that we should replace ALL types of USB by barrel jacks, not only USB-C. Cause circular connectors rule! Make a standard one, I don’t care, as long as I never have to plug a USB-A three times to find the right way.
barrel jacks were great until you lost them and had to buy a new one for way too much money. but, I’d rather have a standardized barrel jack than usb c
yeah my problem is not with having a standard, but with choosing USB-C for it instead of something better.
I get that USB-C was probably the more pragmatic choice since it already existed and a lot of devices were already using it. But I’m still team “Let’s make a new good standard rather than use one that’s just okayish”
I have also had issues with type C connection reliability, but every single time so far it has been an issue with the cable. I thought that the port on my phone of 4+ years was dying, the connection felt loose and it would charge unreliably, but changing out the cable has completely removed all issues.
The main problem I have with USB-C is that the “U” is a lie. Always has been to some extent, but seems like it’s particularly true with USB-C. This is closer to that meme that’s like “There are 12 competing standards. We created a new universal standard to replace them all.” Except instead of there now being 13 competing standards, USB-C is a fractured mess so instead it’s like there’s now 20 competing standards. This cord supports passthrough power, this one doesn’t, but even the one that does only supports 20W so you have to have a special one to deliver 65, and that USB-C power brick only gives 15W, so you have to buy a special one that does 80W, and this USB-C port on my phone doesn’t support the USB-C to Aux jack adapter I bought, so now I have to buy a different adapter. It goes on and on and on and frankly I’m old and tired.
True but at least you can buy replacement cables if they break and you know the spec.
The issue with that is the old cables had the same problem, they just were less noticeable because you didn’t expect them to do what the USB-C is capable of. I had some USB micro cables that would pass power only, and it drove me nuts if they ended up near my computer.
void main() { //code }Is better than
void main() { //code }Why would you want to put it on a separate line? Are you paid by the height of the source file or something?
Why is it better ?
I don’t have a strong opinion, taking the style of the team I work with but why do you feel it is better?
It’s not like putting it on the other line causes any issue.
void main() { //code }No, all in one line baby!! I haven’t done JavaScript in a while but I think that will work. After coming from python I thought it was funny you could just put everything in one line.
Using tabs for document management (f.e. Browsers, Text-Editors, …) was a mistake. It would be way better if every document (website, text-file, image, console, …) was in its own window, centrally managed by an intelligent window manager of the OS that allows quick and easy search between all documents like with a full-text searchable exposè-like view.
Using tabs for document-management was a bad but necessary workaround because Windows is a horrible window manager (despite its name, ironically).
Tabs work best when there is a fixed amount of them (Like with game settings: Controls, Audio, Video, Gameplay).
I could go on for quite a while on this, but I think this is where I stop.
That sounds like tabs with extra steps.
I’m sure there’s some Linux configuration to enable that
linux has tiling windows managers that allow you to do this
so basically GNU/Linux Window Managers also GNU/Emacs
Single-speed bicycles suck.
They combine the drawbacks of a geared bike with the drawbacks of a fixed gear bike.Whaaat.
I’m not necessarily challenging your opinion because aparently you’re going to die on this hill, but …
This is not a tiny hill.
But most people would say that single speed has none of the disadvantages of fixed.
As an aside, I have 3 bikes. I’ve never ridden a fixie but holy fuck I would love to have one.
I’m so confused. Drawbacks of a geared bike? As opposed to what? Flintstoning it?
I must just not be understanding what you mean.
I’ve ridden bikes with no derailer or gears, when you backpedal, you brake.
And I’ve ridden mountain bikes with front and rear gear changing.
I know there are super exotic driveshaft bikes, and electric etc, but besides that, what could you be talking about?
Fixed Gear advantages:
- can slow down by pushing back on pedals -> almost no brake pad wear
- almost no maintenance
- can do trackstands and ride backwards
- unique, fun riding style
- completely quiet drivetrain
- less interesting to thieves
Drawback:
- can’t switch gears
Geared Bike advantage:
- can switch gears
Drawbacks:
- basically the inverse of everything above
Single-Speed bikes can do none of the things fixed gear bikes can do, and also can’t switch gears.
Thanks for this, but I apologize, I’m still confused.
You’ve described fixed gear, and geared, I think we now agree as to what these are.
But what is a single speed bike? I’ve never heard of it. Is it a geared bike, with only one gear, but still has a tensioner? So it can’t have hub brakes? Why would such a thing exist?
Code indentation should never use tabs, only spaces.
I don’t understand why this is such a big deal for anyone. With all the UI utilities available it would be incredibly easy to have a setting to interpret 5 consecutive spaces as a tab or a tab as 5 consecutive spaces and just let whoever prefers what to choose how they are going to interface with the code. Hell, you could even make it so 5 is the default and have custom consecutive values as an advanced option in the interpreter for edge cases. So many incredibly more challenging issues have been resolved in IDEs, I just don’t get it.
5!?!? Are you trying to get yourself sectioned?
Reading a tab as however many spaces is trivial, and the point of tabs.
Reading however many spaces as a tab is a gross hack that has to be dialed-in for whatever standard the document chose.
Just use tabs in the first place. God damn. That’s what they’re for.
I’m on team tab 100% I guess I was saying if someone felt they had to use spaces then they shouldn’t handicap everyone else because of their choice and an interpreter could normalize their code.
I would die on the opposite hill. No spaces, only tabs.
What’s your reasoning for liking spaces?
My big reason would be “it hurts readability”. That is, when writing code, readibility for others who aren’t familiar with it (including future me) is my top-priority, and that means indentation and alignment are HIGHLY important, and if I spend the time to write code with specific indentation and alignment, to make it readable at a glance, I want to be certain that it’s always going to display exactly that way. Tabs specifically break that guarantee, because they’re subject to editor settings, which means shit like the below example can occur:
I write the following code with an editor that uses a tab size of 4.
myObject.DoSomething( someParameter: "A", someOtherParameter: "B", value: "C");If someone pulls this up in an editor that uses a tab size of 8, they get…
myObject.DoSomething( someParameter: "A", someOtherParameter: "B", value: "C");Not really a big deal, in this simple case, but it illustrates the point.
My second reason would be that it makes code more difficult to WRITE, I.E. it’s not that hard to insert spaces when you mean to insert tabs, considering that you’re not LITERALLY using only tabs just only tabs for indentation and alignment. And if you do accidentally have spaces mixed in, you’re not going to be able to tell. The guy on another machine with different editor settings will, though.
I’m aware there are fonts that can make spaces and tabs visible and distinct, but that sounds like a NIGHTMARE to write and read code with. I mentioned above, my top priority is easy readability, and introducing more visual noise to make tabs and spaces distinct can only hurt readability.
Because when I move left in tabs, the cursor isn’t clear which tab I’m on. It also tried to sit off the left edge of a terminal in some editors because it aligns with the right side of the character (the tab), instead of the left.
I do see how tabs are a better option : they allow the one editing the file to decide how wide the indentation is. That’s actually good User Interface design, by separating the data from the rendering layout.
I can see the argument both ways, but I like to use spaces so the visual and editing interfaces are more standard.
Richard Hendricks would like a word.
A steel ball is not a ball bearing. A bearing is something that bears load and allows for motion, usually rotation. There are sleeve bearings which are just one material or journal bearings which have pressurized oil to separate the spinning shaft. A ball bearing is an assembly with rolling elements (balls, rather than rollers). Those steel balls are just called balls. The whole assembly is called a ball bearing. I used to work in bearing manufacturing and they were just called balls.
Would it be better if I clarified by calling them “ball bearing balls”? Or would that lead to my unpleasant pummeling by steel balls?
Yeah that’s accurate. Or just “bearing balls”.
Yeah, I think this is the best option. It sounds a little weird at first, because we’re so used to hearing it the other way around, but it makes more sense if you think about it.
It does sound a little weird. I usually just say balls
Probably a slightly higher stair in a staircase one day
English verbs have historically had present form, past form, and past participle form, eg. go / went / gone. I’m sad to see the past participle form being phased out of American English. People I went to school with and who I’m sure were taught differently (not to mention innumerable podcasters and public radio personalities), now say things like: “By the time I got home I found he’d already went,” eliminating the past participle and instead using the past form. Had saw is not uncommon either. I am old enough I refuse to incorporate this development in the language. If I ever encounter had was/were in the wild I might blow a gasket. Now entering my fuddy-duddy years :(
Okay I believe you and all, but I genuinely don’t understand. My partner has even criticized this in my language but I don’t get it.
Sincerely someone who wants to understand and was unfortunately homeschooled by dumb fucks
Thanks for asking–I’ll try to keep it brief (so as not to bore), and my apologies if I am retreading stuff you already know, but I’ll have to do some lead-in to explain why I care about this at all.
Why past participles?–and why I love them:
Starting with a couple of example sentences that could help differentiate the “simple past” form versus the “present perfect” form that uses the past participle:
- I saw a shooting star last night.
- I have not seen a shooting star.
In the first example, the time mentioned is “last night”-- a time period that in the mind of the speaker is finished or closed.
In the second, there is no time frame mentioned, but we intuitively understand that it is making reference to a period of time that is unfinished or still open–in this case that period is “in my life.”
I really appreciate the nuance that a change in verb form can impart, and so elegantly done!
Participles in telling stories
When it comes to telling stories to each other we almost exclusively keep the main actions in the sequence of events in simple past forms, eg.:
- I woke up.
- I got a shower.
- I ate breakfast.
- I couldn’t find my car keys.
- I had to take the bus to work.
But what if I wanted to have a little twist in the story where I make reference to stuff that happened before my narrative? In English we’ve got this great trick up our sleeves. I could use the past perfect, formed by had + past participle, eg:
- I couldn’t find my car keys. Little did I know that my wife had accidentally dropped them into the laundry basket. So I had to take the bus…
Simple, clean, elegant, and provides a satisfying twist :) Otherwise I would have to tell it like:
- My wife accidentally dropped my keys into the laundry basket. I woke up. I got a shower…
Or like this:
- …I couldn’t find my car keys. Earlier my wife accidentally dropped my keys in the laundry basket, but I didn’t know that at the time. I had to take the bus to work.
I guess all are valid, but I certainly find option 1 the nicest. Option 2 has spoilers. Option 3 is what many other languages do.
Verbs and simplification in languages
If I recall from my dabbling in linguistics, there’s a tendency among most languages to become simpler in terms of their grammar over time. Most English verbs are now “regular,” and you can make the simple past and past participle just by adding -ed to the end of the verb, eg.:
- yell - yelled - yelled
- ask - asked - asked
- smile - smiled - smiled
But among our oldest and most common verbs we’ve got bunches of “strong/irregular” verbs, eg.:
- go - went - gone
- take - took - taken
- see - saw -seen
These are the verbs that people are changing in spoken American English at present. People are “regularizing” the past perfect forms by dropping the past participle and using had + simple past. I know it mainly comes down to linguistics drift and personal choice, but I appreciate that these irregular participles have purpose (by being a part of the perfect tenses, and the nuance they can create), and history. Moreover, I think having greater mastery of these forms in your speech and writing helps make reading texts written in English before the end of the 20th century so much easier.
Long story short: people can and will speak English however they want. No big deal. But in the case of excising the irregular past participles from English, I’ll hold on to what I was taught and grew to love about English grammar.
got a shower
That made me shudder. Are you a dog and being showered by someone else, or was it a gift granted to you for hard work that day? ;)
In my dialect it’s the equivalent of took or had a shower. :/
I’ve also noticed an increase in using “had [done]” instead of [did] in places I wouldn’t expect. I’m sure a linguist could break that down more thoroughly.
Oh no…
None. I rather change myself than wasting time on changing something that won’t last forever anyway.
Water is wet
I had and endless argument with some someone about this a while ago here’s how it works (in my opinion) wetness is not a fundamental property of water instead wetness is having water on or inside something so a towel is wet when it has water in it. But a singular water particle by itself is not wet because it is not surrounded by water but most water is wet because they are all surrounded by other water particles.
A particle of water may be surrounded by water but when we talk about water we’re usually referring to a body of water like that in a glass or pot rather than one particle thereof.
Is the water in that glass wet? No. The glass is wet.
A room can be “airy” but the air in that room is not “airy”.
A car can be painted but paint is not painted.
… and so on and so forth.
Water is dry then?
I disagree if there is paint on the paint which there would be unless the paint is 1 particle thick then the paint has been painted. I don’t know what airy means so I can’t comment on that though.
H2O is not water
Is water a collection of H2O particles but not a H2O particle by itself?
Hasok Chang, Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University, wrote a wonderful book Is Water H2O? In it he traces the historical and philosophical twists and turns to get from water to H2O. Along the way, he reckons with and treats seriously competing theories other than what emerged as the winner.
In the end, he doesn’t disagree with the role of H2O in water. Rather, he shows how the process of scientific theory making is benefited from a pluralistic view through s repetitive process of challenge and theory adjustment.
I mainly made the comment because we shouldn’t always assume what we were shown in high school captures the deeper process of insight creation.
He deals with the weekly emergent qualities like surface tension. We might be able to say that surface tension is one property of wetness even.
But I also think that water is one of the few phenomena that seems to actually have a strongly emergent qualities. Which is to say, there’s qualities that are in water that are not explainable by the properties of its component parts.
Ultimately, one of Chang’s goals it to contextualize and not reduce these scientific concepts for greater insights.
To be more accurate, I don’t think it’s wrong to say that water is more than just H2O. To get gestalt, we should say water is something other than the sum of its parts, H2O.
