maxlapdev

But pelicans are almost never accompanied by helmets, so it cancels out.

Never said they were unsolvable. You asked for elaboration about pains of back then before lots of the tools most take for granted existed. You seem to think we are talking about massive problems, but it's more about a thousand papercuts.

It is very funny to me that the sibling comment calls this "a very broken setup" and for you "it doesn't sound like a big deal".

It's all about perspectives, or you really just never had to deal with it.

The happy path ain't a big deal. But think of the unhappy ones:

* What if a server gets rebooted (maybe it crashed) for any reason anywhere in the process. Maybe you lost internet while doing the update. Were you still dropping tarballs? Did the server get it? Did it start with the new version while the other servers are still on the old one?

* What about a broken build (maybe gem problem, maybe migration problem, may other). All your servers are on it, or only one? How do you revert (push an older tarball)

A lot more manual processes. Depends on the tool you had. Good tooling to handle this is more prevalent nowadays.

Note that you probably need 2 or 3 drivers per car to get a similar level of usage of the car that Waymo can do.

The one liner shouldn't have shortcircuiting since it uses the binary or |, not the boolean/logical or||.

I don't understand what problem you are referring to? A different keyword for what? for the return? for the break?

Care to share an example problem?

Yes you can, you use a finally clause around your call to yield, as you would already do to handle possible exceptions happening in the block. So no extra consideration is needed.

That keyboard is seriously bad. If you start pressing the next letter before you release the previous letter, you get neither!

I don't think that's a fair comparison.

In Ruby, you always use the global name (with caps) that normally matches the library with possibly some nesting. (exceptions exists, but its also possible to add globals in Python)

Unless you are talking about include, but thats for mixins, which are snippets of reusable coee you can add to you class.

It doesn't feel at all as dirty as `from blah import *`.

I'm no expert here. You mention "either side" as if the light came from both the left and the right. But I think the light would be coming along a circle all around the sun depending on exact position.

So the trick here is that if you are at the focus point, you get all that light in a small area "for free". But if you try to catch the light on the way, you now need to catch eveywhere in a whole massive circle, which is basically impossible, so you only catch a minuscule amount of the light. And then have to deal with interferometry.

The article argues that most source available licenses also provide more freedom than only reading the code, such as using it and modifying with some limits.

But "source available", english-wise, sounds like you can only read it.

This pushes some to avoid the term and say open source since that's much closer to their what the license does, even if they are not exactly open source.

The argument is that "fair source" would be a much clearer term for most of the "source available with extra freedoms" stuff, and I agree.