xen0

Much of ME2's story is terrible (some of the side character stuff is delightful, but the 'main quest' is a train wreck).

My point was that ME3 was doomed because ME2 utterly failed at bridging the gap between the strong start of an epic that was ME1 and what should have been the conclusion in ME3.

In fact 'fail' may be generous. I don't think it even 'tried'.

To be fair, ME3's ending was doomed before that game started.

I'd place it around the start of ME2.

Thanks to modern playback technology, you can pause it and resume play later at your convenience.

The reported average of 20 days is likely skewed by a small number of long leaves and I suspect* is nowhere near typical for the median worker (it's nearly taking a day off every two weeks).

Longer leave already requires a doctor's approval so the proposal to require that for all leave is unlikely to change much other than drown doctors in more busy work.

*I can't find much for the 'median' amount of leave taken per year.

And yet I would still stop and wait before walking out. The law will not save me against 1.5 tons of metal hitting me by accident.

Indeed, at 3 pieces per second (I don't have a good sense of how fast good tetris players play, but I've seen some videos and it looks like they can average more than one a second), it's 10 hours of constant play.

Playing at such a speed for 10 hours is kind of insane. Playing it without error is not human.

> Also: in Europe everybody normally takes paracetamol and not FANS as a first reach to minimize adverse effects. So this article looks like very US centric.

This is not my experience. After moving to Germany from the UK, I feel like people take and expect Ibuprofen far more often than Paracetamol. It seems like the first port of call for colds and general headaches, with Paracetamol being treated with some suspicion, despite it being far more effective in my experience for certain things (I've taken a lot of Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs in my time so am quite familiar with how they affect me).

As a fencer watching these, I've never felt like I've not known where the blades are. Just from the hand positions and knowing what people do. So I find the constant lights a little distracting.

But I can imagine non-fencers don't have that sense.

What I would like is clarity of when blades meet; this is crucial when determing who scores in foil and sabre and it's often muddied or lost during recordings.

I've never grokkeed suffix trees, but isn't possible for them to be O(n) in space (n total length of all strings)? Is there just an unacceptable constant factor overhead? I can imagine the pointer overhead being painful.

That is... amazing.

I think my favourite part is the fact that '1' isn't even one of the supported values.

As an Englishman that has been transplanted to another country, I find myself making them more in Germany than I ever made them back home.

But that's because my wife requests it.

It would never occur to me to up the egg ratio so high to reach into that void though. My wife manages to mess up the proportions every time though, so maybe we'll unwittingly explore that region one day.

I am not a fan of Github's interface.

But my point is, is that I believe the important thing to preserve in history is whatever your unit of review is. If you could stack PRs and each were subject to the individual review, I would not combine and squash those (just the individual commits within each PR).

I want every commit to represent a buildable state in which I have confidence automated tests pass. Bisecting is made unnecessarily difficult otherwise, and it's nice to be able checkout any commit and just build something for testing.

This constraint is usually enforced by code review.

On Github, the unit of code review is the PR.

Therefore, I prefer squashing.

Thanks for pointing out what I was missing.

Please consider a variable `List{int}[3] x`, this is an array of 3 List{int} containing List{int}. If we do `x[1]` we will get an element of List{int}, from the middle element in the array. If we then further index this with [5], like `x[1][5]` we will get the 5th element of that list.

I get that motivation. In C++ it's an odd case that where `std::vector<int> x[4]` is "reversed" in a sense compared to `int x[4][100]`. And this quirk is shared with other languages (Java, C#).

But in my experience, mixing generic datatypes like this with arrays is quite rare, and multi-dimensional array like structures with these types is often specified via nesting (`std::vector<std::vector>>`) which avoids confusion.

The argument re. pointers is more convincing though.