- Exactly. This idea comes up time and time again, but the cost/benefit just doesn't make sense at all. You're adding an unbelievable amount of complex tooling just to avoid running a simple formatter.
The goal of having every developer viewing the code with their own preferences just isn't that important. On every team I've been on, we just use a standard style guide, enforced by formatter, and while not everyone agrees with every rule, it just doesn't matter. You get used to it.
Arguing and obsessing about code formatting is simply useless bikeshedding.
- I feel this may be an appropriate place to link this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDJueqppHo
- 3 points
- I don't, unfortunately. I'm trying to avoid having a dedicated backend for this so there are Google Analytics but they don't allow that granular of a metric.
That definitely could be something interesting, but I'd probably need a decently larger player base to get enough data, considering how many words are possible.
- I did consider this but the effort of doing a full dictionary pass is a lot to ask for marginal improvement and I don't know anyone quite as obsessed as me who would do it. Paying someone would be possible, but finding the right combination of "willing to do it for pay" and "I trust their judgement" is hard.
In practice, the way I approach this is by reacting to complaints from players who either don't know words I included or were disappointed I didn't include a particular word.
- 14 points
- College students don't have to, since they don't meet this criteria to be charged the monthly fee: "Those that have made $200,000 USD or more in the last 12 months AND have at least 200,000 lifetime game installs."
That said, wow. Charging a monthly fee on game installs is absolutely wild. The personal fee (for first world countries) is $0.20 / month. If you charged $10 for the game, you'd be losing money after only 50 months (around 4 years).
- 2 points
- Those relatives/friends/neighbors may very well have a healthier relationship with the news than you do. For a certain set of people (me included), news is addictive and destructive to my life, but for others, it's something they can peruse once a day.
Besides which, it's not like a majority of people will ever quit the news. You alone doing it is not doing anyone else a hardship. It's not like anyone is thinking, "Ugh, I have to keep scrolling twitter so that I can keep my news-less friend in the loop."
- I'm curious what improvement, if any, is seen from using the fan on the range hood while using the gas stove/oven. Since I heard about this issue, I've been using it every time I use the stove or oven, and it does make a different to the subjective gas smell around the house, but I don't know if it impacts actual NO2 levels.
- There's some rumination in this article on how difficult it is to get rid of gifts.
I find Marie Kondo's advice on this very practical: https://konmari.com/gifts-that-dont-spark-joy/
“The true purpose of a present is to be received.”
"... You don’t have to keep using the gift forever. If you try using the item and decide that it still doesn’t suit you, thank it for the joy it brought when you first received it – and bid it farewell. The true purpose of a present is to be received, because gifts are a means of conveying someone’s feelings for you. When viewed from this perspective, there is no need to feel guilty about parting with a gift that ultimately doesn’t spark joy."
- Completely agree. As a user, I often find FAQ pages to be the single most useful documentation pages.
I rarely read the entirety of the documentation for something, but I usually will read the entire FAQ for something I'm interested in. It has a far higher usefulness-to-length ratio than most documentation, since if done properly, everything in the FAQ was useful to somebody (or hopefully many people).
It's also arguably the best format for certain types of information. For many things, there are "obvious" questions one would ask about them (e.g. "Does this take into account X?", "What about Y?"). When I think of these when reading about something, I'll check the FAQ, and it's often presented right there. It ends up being by far the easiest way to get answers to these types of questions.
To nitpick, this is not necessarily true. You can imagine a person who had exactly one descendant, who had exactly one descendant, and so on, to the present day. This person would be the ancestor of only one person living today.Conversely, the remaining 80 percent are the ancestor of everyone living today.
Not only possible, but exactly what AI does. :)