ginsider_oaks

who is "he"?

> "review the image for [...] blatant indicator of plagiarism"

There's a program for that on your computer, it's called 'true'.

more like suing the driver because the (self-driving) car hit a human.

> Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.

from the preface of SICP.

would it be better if they didn't skip the hard part? (i.e. if they re-designed it from first principles) does something being hard to do make it more virtuous?

would it be better if they didn't have fun coding it? is something worse if it was fun to make?

lawnmower

or even better:

  :'<,'>s/^/> /

if you use ublock origin you should be OK, it warns you when you try to access lubuntu.net

funnily my friend just discovered that you can split it into thirds a few day ago and now does it whenever he eats a banana

list languages and array languages are quite different. in LISP, the lists are heterogeneous i.e. each element can contain different types, which is also how you can e.g. make a tree out of lists in LISP. typically in array languages all elements are the same, and you use operations that apply to the whole array e.g. one operation for summing the array rather than a loop.

> Most of them shouldn't have a right to vote in the first place [in my opinion].

> > These are simply more opinions [...]

> > > No, not opinions. Demonstrable facts.

you're going to have to explain this one to me

The point is that the first list is a series of (flawed) reasons that the author, and probably many others, have been discouraged from blogging.

And even if you know they're flawed, it can still get in your head and discourage you, so the author provides a different list of reasons to still blog in spite of that. It's not meant as proving/disproving any of the points, but simply as motivation to keep going.