dmorgan81

Have you tried L-theanine? I also get panic attacks with weed, but L-theanine seems to help keep them at bay.

I miss working at a place where that was encouraged. Now if I do that the testers complain that it’s not in scope for the ticket and to split the changes into another ticket with a separate test plan. The rot thus continues.

I clicked and bought something via an online ad once. I needed a new jacket and the one in the ad was exactly what I was looking for. I overpaid because the jacket fell apart after a couple wears. The experience has definitely soured me on ads, even more than I was before. If marketers weren’t selling me overpriced junk I might have a more favorable view.

> Sometimes things take time, and can't be delegated

This is something I keep saying to our team, but we have some members who want to keep breaking things into more and more tickets. Their argument is it allows more bits to be worked on in parallel but I point out that it means context must be rediscovered by multiple people. Sometimes it’s okay for one ticket to be a large-ish do-it ticket and we don’t need a design+breakdown for every aspect of a feature.

This ruling just shifts when a bribe occurs. If I had the money and wanted to affect gov't policy I'd start by "gifting" gratuities to all sorts of politicians "for your past service." Most importantly, I'd spread that information far and wide.

Once it's well known that I like giving politicians gratuities and that I always give gratuities, all it takes is a conversation and the ball is rolling. I never have to say any of the words or phrases during that conversation that magically turn things into a bribe; it's understood that once the deed is done the money will be on the way.

This ruling shreds the concept that even the appearance of impropriety is bad.

As the article says, Ancestry wasn’t selling this data and was linking back to where it had come from. Ancestry also says they will honor robots.txt with instructions not to scrape data.

I doubt it's still used much in web programming, but for backend data processing there are plenty of systems that output XML. XSLT is a great resource when you need to simplify a gnarly document.

Congress was destined to this fate when they eliminated earmarks. Earmarks, or pork barrel spending, were derided as gov't waste, but in reality they were the grease that kept legislation moving. A representative could go back to their voters and say, "I voted for this thing you might not like, but I did it to ensure this crucial local project got done."

Without earmarks there is no incentive to compromise. Compromise is actually a liability now, because there is always someone who will challenge you in a primary and promise to be more "ideologically pure." Without the ability to point to money and public works to defend yourself both during a primary and an election the best you can do is point to a record without compromise.

That same article says she was born in 1989 and graduated MIT in 1987. I knew she was driven, even before conception!

You're upset that a fantasy world that is based on a real place, but isn't that place mind you, added a black character? In a world with ice magic, animated snowmen, and singing reindeer you are upset about diversity because it's not realistic.

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. Basically the right wing’s latest boogeymen to scare up their base. Think how “woke” has been co-opted and used by pundits to make people angry.

That would be argued in cross-examination. A witness can be shown to be not a good witness. Perjury is very specific to knowingly lying while testifying under oath. We really don't want to expand it to areas of ignorance or disagreement; that way would stop people from testifying entirely.

11 hours = 39,600 seconds

Max signed int16 = 32,767

Maybe a signed overflow?

I loved Pebble. My wife and I had multiple watches and I was very active in the dev community. If Pebble were still around I’d still be a customer.

Pebble’s problem wasn’t the Apple Watch, although it certainly didn’t help. What killed Pebble was its growth. They hired a lot of people and rented a very expensive office, but they just didn’t have the sales to support it. The Time Round was an absolute marvel of engineering, but it should’ve been put on the back burner until the OG and the Time actually sold.

Out of all the money Pebble spent very little was for actually advertising their product. Outside of tech circles it just wasn’t a known thing, which was a shame.

It also didn’t help that their app store had no payment solution. One was eventually released by a third party but that didn’t help draw developers. Their SDK was a joy to use and Pebble Cloud was awesome. But if you can’t really get a return on investment because you can’t sell your app then nobody is going invest.

I miss Pebble a lot. I still pull out my Time Steel every so often just to admire it.

But if you're writing in English, or really any language, you should attempt to follow the rules of that language, especially if you want wide readership. Grammar rules might be arbitrary, but readers learn those rules and expect what they read to follow those rules.

Readers have different expectations for poetry than other forms of writing. We don't expect technical docs to be in the form of epic verse.

If we could beam our thoughts directly into each other's head, we would. It would be the easiest way to convey information. Alas, we don't have that ability, so we resort to the written word. If your goal is to spread something interesting don't make it more difficult for your readers by hiding your point behind a style choice that directly contradicts the readers' expectations.

Capitalization goes hand-in-hand with punctuation. A period is only part of the formula that tells a reader that a complete thought is done. Capitalizing the next letter is a signal that the next complete thought is starting. The reader doesn't have to continually guess whether the punctuation was incorrectly or accidentally placed.

I pushed through your style choice and read the article because what you had to say was interesting and important. But not all readers are going to grant you the same courtesy. If you really want the widest distribution possible do your readers a favor and capitalize things according to the rules.

You used paragraphs and correct spelling, as well as avoiding things like run-on sentences and sentence fragments. It's obvious you want people to your read your work. Whatever reasons you have for choosing to not use capitalization, those reasons are not as important as the message you are trying to spread.

It’s mostly for time purposes. Nobody wants to wait another hour for the round to end because someone is trying to draw their game, which means those players potentially have to play yet another game. In reality it doesn’t happen that often.

In your games with your friends feel free to ignore this rule. If you made a deck that managed to pull it off I would think it was cool.

The Magic tournament rules cover this:

“Some loops are sustained by choices rather than actions. In these cases, the rules above may be applied, with the player making a different choice rather than ceasing to take an action. The game moves to the point where the player makes that choice. If the choice involves hidden information, a judge may be needed to determine whether any choice is available that will not continue the loop.”

Basically if a player has open information, like an activated ability, that could end the loop that player is not allowed to not use it to keep the loop going indefinitely. If that player instead has hidden information, i.e. a card in hand, that could end the loop any player can call a judge to confirm that and force the player to end the loop.

Note this doesn’t extend past cards in hand, though. If a player has some way to search their deck for a card that could end the loop, they are not forced to search and then play that card. At that level it moves from a player intentionally delaying the game with the resources at hand or in play to a judge dictating a player’s actions.

It depends. If the game state changes, say like a change in one player’s life total, then the loop won’t usually end in a draw. In the example above the opponent will eventually die.

In paper once a player has demonstrated a loop they must choose a number of times to repeat the loop and then the game is fast forwarded to the chosen end state. For example, a player might execute a loop that could gain them infinite life, but really they must choose a point to stop. Usually that player will choose 1,000,000,000,000 or another “essentially infinite” value and the game moves on.

There are infinite loops that can draw the game, but in a tournament game if one player can take an action that would end the loop, say by destroying one of the loop pieces, that player must take that action. Only if no player can end the loop does the game end in draw.