Skip Navigation

Posts
52
Comments
1004
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)

    The Three Sisters […] are the three main agricultural crops of various indigenous people of Central and North America: squash, maize ("corn"), and climbing beans […]. […] In a technique known as companion planting, the maize and beans are often planted together in mounds […]; squash is typically planted between the mounds. The cornstalk serves as a trellis for climbing beans, the beans fix nitrogen in their root nodules and stabilize the maize in high winds, and the wide leaves of the squash plant shade the ground, keeping the soil moist and helping prevent the establishment of weeds.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Well, “Native Americans” means everything from whoever lived on the tip of today’s Argentina all the way to the Inuit. So saying “native Americans” when it’s actually just two tribes is wrong.

    Edit: Wikipedia says the technique was used by ‘various’ people.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I’m always on the edge of ‘category theory might be fun to get the gist of’ and ‘what the fuck is this what cocaine addict came up with it burn it with fire’. This pushes me more towards the latter.

  • They do provide a *.deb.

  • Let’s consult Wikipedia (emphasis mine) [1].

    Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain, such as an encyclopedia of medicine, philosophy or law. Works vary in the breadth of material and the depth of discussion, depending on the target audience.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Four_major_elements

  • Simple English is for people who would like a simpler language. I’m advocating for reduced scope – or at least better organization of detail. Move stuff that’s irrelevant in the great scheme of things to subpages or pages with narrower scope, instead of writing one single compendium on a topic.

    I feel like the English Wikipedia is already better at this. In the German, on the other hand, the first sentence sometimes contains multiple lines of etymological derivations of the article’s title before it even mentions what it’s about (as soon as I stumble upon one of these monstrosities again, I’ll report the example here).

  • Which isn’t a bad thing. Wikipedia has for the last 25 years aimed at providing you with every bit of knowledge there is on a topic. That simply is not what people want when they look for information. No-one wants to read a full library’s worth of text when they want to figure out what happened in WWII. But Wikipedia lists all the minutae of every battle on every part of land, sea and air, including all the acting people from generals down to the lowliest private.

  • Jungle

    Jump
  • Fall-through in switch/case. The perpetual anti-personnel mine.

  • a precursor believed to be the real origin

    You make it sound like this was 10000 years ago and archeologists had to figure that out on dig sites. It’s well-known that the internet developed out of the ARPANET.

  • Commas are a premium feature now.

  • I wish you better luck the next time you try to read.

  • I wish there were a free database of words to answer that question. :(

  • You store your code in the fridge? Does that keeps the bugs out?

  • They burned that horse.

  • As soon as you say, “I was looking for a library,” you’ve already indicated that you feel entitled to find a library somewhere rather than build it yourself

    That interpretation is completely on you. Whenever one is writing code, it’s good practice to check if it hasn’t been written before. No-one needs to re-invent the wheel for the umpteenth time.

    Do you not understand how that comes across as entitled?

    No. This approach is literally taught at Uni. Don’t repeat work. That’s not only in programming. A chemist’s saying is “6 months in the lab can save you 2 hours in the library.” Blindly doing everything from scratch is just incredibly poor use of resources.

    You’ll reject a GPL licensed library because it is copylefted and you know your management would never go for GPLing the entire work.

    Yes. I don’t see how that’s a contentious point. I think I made my position clear in my last comment.

    why do you expect there to just be some library you can use internally

    That assumption is based on experience. The whole JavaScript ecosystem thrives on the idea of building stuff based on others’ work. It’s you, btw, that chose to interpret ‘looking for’ as ‘expecting to exist’. I never said that, nor did I mean it.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • At some point the bugs are features.

  • Did you read the article I linked which explains what the :has selector does?