msquog

The world cup half-time tea break spike. The load of millions of electric kettles boiling in unison.

All the nation's toilets also flush repeatedly at much the same time, which was a central plot point in the film "Flushed Away".

It's an interesting phenomenon, though I'd never considered that dealing with it could prepare us for a malicious attack some day.

You made a product where people compete to pay you the most?

That's hilarious

But jira isn't the problem that's being solved - a person hired full time would be a project manager, who in the absence of jira, would solve the project management problem with different tools.

Jira is not perfect. But the atlassian suite as a whole, with integration between CI, PM and version control, is quite powerful and more than adequate in many cases.

That said, boy have I seen it used terribly. It's double edged for sure.

Learning pandas really does feel like learning a new language - new syntax, idioms and implementation details to be aware of. Much more so than other libraries imo.

Given how utterly powerful it is, I think that's OK.

Not sure a large list of optional params (with good documentation) is a bad thing though.

This is your take-away?

Right, but then you're ignoring ambient light. Your statement isn't true in a dark room, where the very much does care.

This is uninformed and unsubstantiated.

The answer depends massively on the intended use case.

The adverts are right there on the page still.

Why would it be more profitable to send users to the BBC website?

> Take for an example the UK referendum to leave the EU. Even though it's overall a complete shitshow, and all sides usually agree on that, nobody can really claim that it wasn't a democratic decision. Was it a smart one? Who knows, I doubt it. But it was democratic, and that's more than I can say about this mess

You are oversimplifying this - that vote was between a definite (the status quo) and a vague future direction (insert personal fantasy about what "leave" actually meant)

Is it any more democratic to make people choose between "definitive choice x" and "the mystery box", than it is to make people vote for a vague bag of promises (a representative) as they already do?

If not, then what you're probably after is a democratic choice between two or more defined options. But who chooses which options are presented to people? Who oversees the ensuing floods of propaganda?

A direct democracy moves even more power to the propaganda machine, not the people.