pwdisswordfishy

In my password, I have the Collectivity of Saint Martin flag emoji and United States Minor Outlying Islands flag emoji next to the French flag emoji and US flag emoji. For good measure, also the flag of Chad next to the flag of Romania. I am sure it's not going to cause any issues.

So ist der Geist!

You can tune a fish, it's that the command for that is fish_config instead.

It should not be legal to enforce full stop. If you don't want to be disparaged, make your conduct worthy of not being disparaged. When you're being lied about, sue for defamation; "non-disparagement clauses" are redundant at best, an attack on free speech at worst.

> it’s easier to draw pictures as a matrix of bytes that are transmitted from left to right and top to bottom

This argument is pretty silly: visualizations can always be changed. For some time I have been thinking that hexdumps on little-endian systems ought to be written right-to-left: in fact, when I once decided to include such a right-to-left dumper in my own software, it took me very little time for me to get used to, and I immediately started regretting I don't have it available everywhere.

> Marc Andreessen was right about web browsers.

Actually, what about web browsers was he right about?

Or wait until P3655 ships, which will bring std::wcstring_view.

You need a better sense of humour apparently.

"Italic" does not merely mean "slanted".

A coding font is supposed to help you distinguish between characters, not confuse them for each other. Also, ASCII ligatures usually look worse than the proper Unicode character they are supposed to emulate. The often indecisive form they take (glyphs rearranged to resemble a different character, but still composed of original glyph shapes; weird proportions and spacing due to the font maintaining the column width of the separate ASCII code points) creates a strong uncanny valley effect. I wouldn't mind having "≤", "≠" or "⇒" tokens in my source code, but half-measures just don't cut it.

Wow, some corps could offload some of their costs to "the community" (unpair labor), while end users are as disenfranchised as ever! How validating!

There's no ignoring it. It was raised pre-emptively in the very first comment: "the way that "professional" is used as a euphemism in Americans' bizarre discursive repertoire".

> the phrase "unprofessional professional" means

That's just an oxymoron.

> a professional (ie getting paid) who is behaving unprofessionally (ie exhibiting a lack of professionalism)

A professional who is getting paid, the (only) necessary and sufficient condition for being "professional", is by definition exhibiting professionalism. That's a fact, and it's not any more complicated than that.

> reluctance to really talk about class and their own position in the class system in favour of lip service

That's by design, obvs.

But if the assertion fails, the program is aborted before the pointer would have been dereferenced, making it not UB. This explanation is bogus.

Nope. There's no broader debate. "Professional" means "X is getting paid for this", not "X is paying something in order for X to be able to do this". It's that simple.

> To put an example, suppose you hire a painter, and they show up with non-work attire, no ladder, no brush, they ask you to buy a can of paint for them and a brush. Compared to a contractor that bills you flat and brins their own ladder, has work clothing and shoes, an air pneumatic spray painter, a breathing mask. Who is more professional?

Literally meaningless. Are both getting paid? Yes? Then they are both professionals.

You can insist on using "professional" in a strained way to try to facilitate some attempt at being judgmental and gatekeepy, but "professional" means what it means. If you mean something else, then say what you mean and leave out the euphemisms.