jonasenordin

Went ahead and clicked anyway, scientifically-minded that I am. No appreciable disillusionment occurred.

Didn't Excel gain the ability to use names at some point?

Is 'anominal' a word? As in 'anominal' or 'non-nominal' programming, or 'un-' or 'dis-'. Maybe Excel rises to 'pseudonominal'.

--- quote ---

Most users would use below nested IF function

=IF(B2=$F$3,$G$3,IF(B2=$F$4,$G$4,IF(B2=$F$5,$G$5,IF(B2=$F$6,$G$6,IF(B2=$F$7,$G$7,IF(B2=$F$8,$G$8))))))

Important_Distinction. _That_Should_Be_in_the_Headline_Maybe.

Thanks, saving a click, not going for the article; not that it's necessarily bad or uninteresting; not that I wouldn't if I had more time on this planet.

I recently happened upon a comment (not on HN) that seemed to treat 'zugzwang' as a synonym for 'deadlock'. Possibly because 'zugzwang' sounds really cool and makes your inner voice sound intelligent to your inner ear.

I haven't kept up with C++ in a few years - what does constexpr do for local variables?

  constexpr double a0 = 1.5707288;

Tell it to "always when I search for quoted text, pretend you're the Galaxy S20 gallery app"

And it's actually a good thing that it hasn't come any closer.

The simple English article seems to imply the True Justified Belief 'definition'. I don't think the TJB really gets us anything.

For instance: why is 'true' included in the TJB triad? 'Justified' should cover it, no? This gap seems to be the cause of the Gettier silliness.

To expand on each part: 'believe' is a rather tricky Theory-of-Mind concept in itself. Eg: how familiar with a scientific model like AGW do you need to be to be allowed to 'believe' it? 'True' is similarly difficult. 'Justified' is the most sensible part, but that is still very difficult. I think science is what it boils down to.

I think philosophers really badly want a concept of Knowledge that is a meaningful and 'hard'. For their own title to make sense, actually. They love it; shame if it was all sloppy thinking.

Conductivity: Film at Eleven

The alternatives to using previously or normally civilian buildings are, I believe, to be outdoors or in tents. Originally military buildings are too few and probably already in bad shape.

Is this _really_ how you want the game to be played?

Very nice. Made me think of Paul Simon, made me relisten to Graceland, the song. Always a great listen, great sound. Thought it was just about him paying tribute to musical roots, 'Mississippi delta' and all that. But wait what? 'after the failure of his marriage.'... 'Actress and author Carrie Fisher'. Well internet, Today I Learned.

Huge aside aside, aren't these songs a little similar?

I use a very low-tech solution: I stick a <pre> tag at the start of javadoc comments, and make liberal use of empty lines for spacing.

So I don't use any advanced html tags and stuff. Of course I use @link, which is the most useful feature of javadoc.

BTW, maybe the 'meaning' of <style> tags should be clarified for ambitious documenters... It seems they only affect the one javadoc they are inside of, which is pretty useless.

If status codes bleed into 6xx we'll know HE COMES.

I am starting an early warning system, a daemon process, polling random web sites for status lines like this. Do I need to handle Unicode?