These claims assume that phone choice is predicated on personality traits, not merit or one of a thousand other factors. Useless.
Frankly, phone choice amounts to what you're already using since the cost to switch is greater than most people's dissatisfaction. Few people have given both platforms a fair shake in order to make an informed decision. Most made a largely uninformed decision long ago and have stuck with it.
Everything seems to amount to tribalism. Some people don't care what "team" they are on.
"Expanded tabs are a waste of space. The reasonable solution is using tabs for leading indent, and space otherwise. Tabs provide proper semantic meaning for indent, allowing editors to respect user preference."
A laughably broken solution for many reasons. Mixing tabs and spaces on the same line will be broken 100% of the time and the "semantic meaning for indent" does not occur just at the beginning of a line so your solution does nothing.
It's not surprising that someone who gets the issue so wrong would subsequently argue for a tool that forces such poorly conceived solutions on everyone. There is already a perfect solution...spaces.
3 characters is the perfect indentation amount and is curiously the standard in use at the company I joined a few years ago. 2 is not visually distinctive enough and 4 wastes screen space.
A tab character means move to the next 8th column. There is no other valid definition, and those who think otherwise are the cause of the problem. Once people understand and accept it, there is no longer any argument for the use of tabs.
Perhaps tab users have never added a comment to a source file.
Your attitude is actually the cause of the problem, you're the one saying "Fuck you". Tabs only work consistently up to the first non-whitespace character on a line.
You cannot change the definition of a tab and get code alignment to actually work right. It only works for the specific choice made by the programmer when he made the file. It's utility is an illusion, tabs as a solution for code formatting are as worthless as the opinions that defend them.
Once upon a time tabs were good in source files because they saved space. That no longer matters. That's why people who really understand the issue insist on spaces only in source files.
If you want a solution to the "often poor" indentation problem, use and editor that can fix it for you. Many can trivially.
Anyone who defines how an editor should behave by what vim does gets what he deserves. Same is true for emacs since both are 40+ years old. We've made some progress since then.
Controlling indention, auto-indenting, and even reflowing of code blocks is pretty easy in a good tool. You should try one.
Exactly. Source code control tools plus the realization that you have to work with others changes the issue completely. Of course, the person you're responding to thinks the argument is over which key you press...
You should be become an outcast in every community since you can't think clearly. Nevertheless, Python itself restricts formatting choices *almost* none, only that blocks share a common indention (and that blocks can't share a line with other code in most instances). A far greater formatting offense in the "python community" is the restriction to 80 column lines which has been dead since the 80's.
As objectionable as it sounds, python's odd approach to white space doesn't present problems in practice nor does anyone using any reasonable editor have problems with "tabs vs spaces" in Python. It's a non-issue.
The real violator is make. It actually requires tabs where spaces would otherwise work. It is an actual problem yet no one claims make is for "faggots" except perhaps AC a-holes like you.
The debate isn't about what key you press on your keyboard, it's about what characters are written to the text file. It's not surprising, though, to see such a shallow misunderstanding of the issue combined with a willingness to argue about it. If people would actually think this argument would be put to sleep.
Good editors will translate tabs to spaces on load (and maybe even back to tabs on save) and most will auto-indent. This has been true since before many here were born. It's not about effort, its about code having a consistent appearance for every programmer in every tool. That cannot be accomplished with tabs since everyone reserves the right to corrupt the true meaning of a tab (every 8th column, never anything else).
There are no CISC processors, only CISC instruction sets. That ignorant fanboy feud died back in the 90's. Processor architecture is not driven by instruction set.
Nor are the "interesting times" unique to CISC. All processors have this issue unless they are uncompetitive.
AMD hasn't been competitive in quite a while and there's nothing new there. What has changed is the inherent need for x86 processors at all. Intel's threat is from ARM, not AMD.
"Apple has always included plenty of ports in the pro models, and they will continue to do so..."
As long as you get to define "pro model" and "plenty of ports" then sure. We all know how SuperKendall would define these things.
Of course, the topic was Macs, not just Mac notebooks, and the current "Mac Pro" is the very definition of "not plenty of ports" unless all you want is USB and Thunderbolt. No PCIe slots, no drive bays, limited internal storage, no graphics upgradeability. It's a "pro model", though, so I'm sure you say it's "plenty". You have a long history of defining need by what Apple does.
"There's nothing wrong or odd about having multiple lines of product that serve the needs of different users."
No, except this isn't at all descriptive of Apple and their Mac line generally speaking.
If you do this for a living then I suspect you don't make a very good living.
This isn't for commercial enterprises to bring product to market nor does this burden anyone with losing "precious months" getting an OS running nor is the processor in this inherently "vastly under-powered" nor does $5 dollars of BOM cost translate only into $5 in product cost. None of your points indicate that you understand what a "viable business plan" is.
No one is late to the IoT party yet. It's not clear there's even going to be one.
You've made up an implementation that you have absolutely no reason to believe actually exists.
T-Mobile's existing "unlimited" plans move you into slower speeds when you've hit quotas. It has nothing to do with priorities nor can you get full speeds under light loads.
Your use of the term "UX" suggests you aren't nearly as "aging" as you lead on. UX is a term invented after "the world of software turned to utter crap".
"Should donors care that the ALS challenge was a little high on the cost-to-raise-a-dollar metric? Well, I look at it this way. People did it because it was fun and for a good cause, and two years later we can point to concrete and significant scientific results from the money raised. That's not only pretty good, it's pretty damned awesome."
Don't let the otherwise informative post persuade you, donors should always care about the overhead costs of the charities they support. Just because an activity is "fun" does not excuse it from excesses and wastefulness. If people truly want to make a difference they should expect efforts be applied to progress, not enrichment.
"To think otherwise would either make you extremely naive or stupid."
No it wouldn't, but regardless it wouldn't make you a money launderer.
"but you need to understand you may have your profits taken away"
Some more hand waving. Profits?
"For example, if they'd committed a robbery and killed someone in the progress and you laundered the money you could be charged with murder."
Just for example;)
If you loaned your friend some cash to buy gas for his car and he subsequently drove 30 mph over the speed limit (a felony) then you "could be charged" with that felony. Sounds reasonable. How dare you promote the endangerment of the public!
"... was charged with illegally selling and laundering $1,500 worth of Bitcoins to undercover detectives who told him they wanted to use the money to buy stolen credit-card numbers."
The assumption here by detectives was that merely claiming the proceeds would be used for illegal activity made the transaction money laundering.
Slashdot Mirror
A "yellowing lens" does NOT alter the frequency of light (of course), it varies attenuation with respect to frequency. "That's hilarious."
"So, the relevant light could be blue or could be green depending on the individual?"
Of course not. A blue light will remain blue but be perceived darker by a yellow-tinted lens.
"Good luck with that."
Perhaps you should learn what you are talking about rather than post snarky remarks. Good luck with that.
Yes.
These claims assume that phone choice is predicated on personality traits, not merit or one of a thousand other factors. Useless.
Frankly, phone choice amounts to what you're already using since the cost to switch is greater than most people's dissatisfaction. Few people have given both platforms a fair shake in order to make an informed decision. Most made a largely uninformed decision long ago and have stuck with it.
Everything seems to amount to tribalism. Some people don't care what "team" they are on.
"Tabs with PHP, HTML and other web programming languages. Not using them at least triples your file size."
LOL I don't think so.
So your average line length is more than ¾ leading spaces?
I find it humorous that people think of the web as "programming".
"Expanded tabs are a waste of space. The reasonable solution is using tabs for leading indent, and space otherwise. Tabs provide proper semantic meaning for indent, allowing editors to respect user preference."
A laughably broken solution for many reasons. Mixing tabs and spaces on the same line will be broken 100% of the time and the "semantic meaning for indent" does not occur just at the beginning of a line so your solution does nothing.
It's not surprising that someone who gets the issue so wrong would subsequently argue for a tool that forces such poorly conceived solutions on everyone. There is already a perfect solution...spaces.
3 characters is the perfect indentation amount and is curiously the standard in use at the company I joined a few years ago. 2 is not visually distinctive enough and 4 wastes screen space.
A tab character means move to the next 8th column. There is no other valid definition, and those who think otherwise are the cause of the problem. Once people understand and accept it, there is no longer any argument for the use of tabs.
Perhaps tab users have never added a comment to a source file.
Your attitude is actually the cause of the problem, you're the one saying "Fuck you". Tabs only work consistently up to the first non-whitespace character on a line.
You cannot change the definition of a tab and get code alignment to actually work right. It only works for the specific choice made by the programmer when he made the file. It's utility is an illusion, tabs as a solution for code formatting are as worthless as the opinions that defend them.
Once upon a time tabs were good in source files because they saved space. That no longer matters. That's why people who really understand the issue insist on spaces only in source files.
If you want a solution to the "often poor" indentation problem, use and editor that can fix it for you. Many can trivially.
While true, it doesn't argue that Python is "100% tabbed", the specific issue to which you are responding and a gross falsehood.
Python is entirely governed by visible things. All you demonstrate is poor understanding.
Anyone who defines how an editor should behave by what vim does gets what he deserves. Same is true for emacs since both are 40+ years old. We've made some progress since then.
Controlling indention, auto-indenting, and even reflowing of code blocks is pretty easy in a good tool. You should try one.
Exactly. Source code control tools plus the realization that you have to work with others changes the issue completely. Of course, the person you're responding to thinks the argument is over which key you press...
You should be become an outcast in every community since you can't think clearly. Nevertheless, Python itself restricts formatting choices *almost* none, only that blocks share a common indention (and that blocks can't share a line with other code in most instances). A far greater formatting offense in the "python community" is the restriction to 80 column lines which has been dead since the 80's.
As objectionable as it sounds, python's odd approach to white space doesn't present problems in practice nor does anyone using any reasonable editor have problems with "tabs vs spaces" in Python. It's a non-issue.
The real violator is make. It actually requires tabs where spaces would otherwise work. It is an actual problem yet no one claims make is for "faggots" except perhaps AC a-holes like you.
The debate isn't about what key you press on your keyboard, it's about what characters are written to the text file. It's not surprising, though, to see such a shallow misunderstanding of the issue combined with a willingness to argue about it. If people would actually think this argument would be put to sleep.
Good editors will translate tabs to spaces on load (and maybe even back to tabs on save) and most will auto-indent. This has been true since before many here were born. It's not about effort, its about code having a consistent appearance for every programmer in every tool. That cannot be accomplished with tabs since everyone reserves the right to corrupt the true meaning of a tab (every 8th column, never anything else).
There are no CISC processors, only CISC instruction sets. That ignorant fanboy feud died back in the 90's. Processor architecture is not driven by instruction set.
Nor are the "interesting times" unique to CISC. All processors have this issue unless they are uncompetitive.
AMD hasn't been competitive in quite a while and there's nothing new there. What has changed is the inherent need for x86 processors at all. Intel's threat is from ARM, not AMD.
"Apple has always included plenty of ports in the pro models, and they will continue to do so..."
As long as you get to define "pro model" and "plenty of ports" then sure. We all know how SuperKendall would define these things.
Of course, the topic was Macs, not just Mac notebooks, and the current "Mac Pro" is the very definition of "not plenty of ports" unless all you want is USB and Thunderbolt. No PCIe slots, no drive bays, limited internal storage, no graphics upgradeability. It's a "pro model", though, so I'm sure you say it's "plenty". You have a long history of defining need by what Apple does.
"There's nothing wrong or odd about having multiple lines of product that serve the needs of different users."
No, except this isn't at all descriptive of Apple and their Mac line generally speaking.
If you do this for a living then I suspect you don't make a very good living.
This isn't for commercial enterprises to bring product to market nor does this burden anyone with losing "precious months" getting an OS running nor is the processor in this inherently "vastly under-powered" nor does $5 dollars of BOM cost translate only into $5 in product cost. None of your points indicate that you understand what a "viable business plan" is.
No one is late to the IoT party yet. It's not clear there's even going to be one.
You've made up an implementation that you have absolutely no reason to believe actually exists.
T-Mobile's existing "unlimited" plans move you into slower speeds when you've hit quotas. It has nothing to do with priorities nor can you get full speeds under light loads.
Never, and people who complain about it are hypocrites. It's not incumbent on others to deal with your inconveniences.
"Same thing as with TCP/IP vs Token Ring..."
You really shouldn't talk about what you don't understand. If you had "much later understood" you wouldn't make such a stupid comparison now.
Your use of the term "UX" suggests you aren't nearly as "aging" as you lead on. UX is a term invented after "the world of software turned to utter crap".
"Should donors care that the ALS challenge was a little high on the cost-to-raise-a-dollar metric? Well, I look at it this way. People did it because it was fun and for a good cause, and two years later we can point to concrete and significant scientific results from the money raised. That's not only pretty good, it's pretty damned awesome."
Don't let the otherwise informative post persuade you, donors should always care about the overhead costs of the charities they support. Just because an activity is "fun" does not excuse it from excesses and wastefulness. If people truly want to make a difference they should expect efforts be applied to progress, not enrichment.
"Conducting a monetary transaction intended to conceal the proceeds of a crime..."
You are assuming that the transaction is money laundering when that condition has not been met.
"...is the very definition of Accessory after the fact."
It's the "very definition"!?! Who's being "extremely naive or stupid" now.
"His question was about a monetary transaction where he's been told that it's the result of a crime."
You are completely off the deep end here.
"To think otherwise would either make you extremely naive or stupid."
No it wouldn't, but regardless it wouldn't make you a money launderer.
"but you need to understand you may have your profits taken away"
Some more hand waving. Profits?
"For example, if they'd committed a robbery and killed someone in the progress and you laundered the money you could be charged with murder."
Just for example ;)
If you loaned your friend some cash to buy gas for his car and he subsequently drove 30 mph over the speed limit (a felony) then you "could be charged" with that felony. Sounds reasonable. How dare you promote the endangerment of the public!
I think you missed the point.
"... was charged with illegally selling and laundering $1,500 worth of Bitcoins to undercover detectives who told him they wanted to use the money to buy stolen credit-card numbers."
The assumption here by detectives was that merely claiming the proceeds would be used for illegal activity made the transaction money laundering.