gumoro

Do you have a reference for that? Struggling to find one, and very interested.

Looks like so, with a clever rotation, clipping, and drawing twice (had a cursory look at 'lenses.js', look for 'draw_blade')

I think the question is how is this drawn on a canvas. It's not trivial, if I draw 6 shapes successively, one will be on top and another at the bottom, you would not see the tip of one at the top and the other part of the same blade at the bottom. Nicely spotted, interesting question!

Yes, that's why I thought OP's idea of explicitly separating the derived "better" questions interesting, instead of allowing anyone to edit the original question and steer the discussion in a different direction. This is an interesting format that leaves room for multiple directions to explore… which SO does not want to do as they insist so much on focus.

Sometimes the asker is missing a concept, and it's not always impossible to comment about it and rephrase the question to make it answerable & more useful to keep for posterity. It's far from the majority of questions, but not awfully rare either. Some of those are worth salvaging.

I upvoted because I find the idea of an explicit third stage interesting. But SO does offer the ability for experts to edit questions already, in order to keep the simple Q&A format with two stages, so it's "by design". I'm not arguing which design is better... I'd actually like to see your idea implemented :)

First one was aptly closed IMHO, much too vague. SO is not the right tool for absolute beginners to seek guidance when they have no idea what they're doing: the format asks for a reasonably specific answerable question. Would be nice if upon closing the asker was given pointers to beginner-friendly resources, though.

The other two are better, and (aptly) not closed. Of course you'll get inappropriate votes to close, but I hope they are correctly offset by other votes the (hopefully vast) majority of the time.

Now about this:

> how is closing the question helpful in any way?

I suppose it's to stay focused. When googling I quite often get useful SO results (& upvote those), and I'm happy not having to sift through tons of useless questions.

Yes! Unit test code!

I avoid humor in main code, but in unit test code when you have to come up with dummy bits of test data or variable names, I love getting funky there :)

which is close enough to "login", which is widely understood (I do have the same issue with "sign in" VS "sign up", I know the difference, but as a non-native speaker it also takes me a second, or sometimes one is more prominent than the other and I mistakenly click on it, etc).

But whatever, ("Sign in" or "Log in") alongside "Register" is clear enough. "Sign in" alongside "Sign up" is confusing. Thanks Al-Khwarizmi for bringing that up... or is it bring in ? ;)

Bug report: time series analysis chart fails to display properly on Firefox, all points stay on x=0, I see "Unexpected value NaN parsing cx attribute" x250 in the console. Works fine on Chrome.

It's not just about code. In any non-trivial system you have a bunch of components, and any minor occurrence of "bad design" that affects boundaries, protocols, configuration, deployment, persistence schema, upgrade procedures, etc, can lead to huge complications down the road if there's no one to catch this early. Mediocre engineers will only make it worse and worse, and you'll get something super complex that costs big bucks to maintain. If you have someone capable of detecting & fixing such bad patterns early enough, in extreme cases that person can be considered a 1000x engineer.

Wow look at those plan names: "go unlimited", "beyond unlimited", "above unlimited"...

WTF does that mean?

I was wondering the same, but I thought the number of illustrations would be 7!/2 = 2520, that is, the number of permutations for 7 different elements, divided by 2 because symmetrical sequences generate the same drawing.

Is it incorrect? How do you get "6!" ?

720 custom doodles seems doable, 2520 seems a bit much, so I suspect my reasoning for 7!/2 is wrong :)

Edit : oh, I see how for all closed paths all 7 permutations are the same so we can divide by 7 for closed paths, but there are still the open paths... hmmm (still pondering)

Edit 2 : aaaah, got it, I did not notice he was always closing the path himself... tss that's cheating :)