xerophyte12932

But arguably, these species weren't supposed to be here "naturally", so isn't this unnatural? Doesn't this make an unnatural method to stop something unnatural okay?

Also, if introduced/invasive species taking over a region is "evolution" etc, then the virus will just be another invasive species and the rabbits will have to face the consequences of evolution

I am probably going to get a lot of hate for this, but, do these games work over windows?

You have been directly managing over a hundred people? That just sounds like textbook bad heirarchy

Exactly, because you don't want every future reader of the code to have the same question.

This is why I hate implicit assumptions. If I need some special knowledge or some special assumption that is no where in the immediate vicinity of the code, then maybe your approach to the problem is flawed. Sure it'll work but good luck to future coders working with it

I have almost no idea about the Ethereum system, but don't you have to pay to have your code executed on the global ethereum machine? Does that mean I have to pay to test run my code? or maybe after I deploy it?

I thought this was a standard. I have been seeing this in play since highschool guest speaker sessions

I would disagree. My boss has the record of fastest promotion of junior developer to executive and he fights for us against other department/team heads and upper management on a regular basis. Its because he makes sure to deliver such value to the company that the management can't ignore him and his team

> Open Source = more likely for attackers to find bugs, but less likely for bugs to persist. Don't need to trust the company's reputation for code quality.

But you need to trust the entire community not to insert bugs/backdoors and/or weed out such code. Not to mention Open Source contributors arguably have a lesser incentive than closed-source development being done by a company.

Ofc the above argument assumes contributors are allowed to make changes to the codebase, instead of just reviewing the code

I agree. At some point they should stop considering FF users as "well they aren't OUR users" in the cost benefit equation. They have to acknowledge that FF has a big chunk of the market and it should be part of the "Browsers we test on" list.

Considering the features work fine on FF, the actual costs for testing on FF should be minimal.

These are very interesting considering how they show the xact opposite side of the OP's debate.

I find it very amusing when articles quote someone to support their arguments even though the person actually disagrees with their PoV

Is this real?

In his Memoirs, Nixon admitted that the key factor in the decision not to proceed with the nuclear option was that "after all the protests and the Moratorium, American public opinion would be seriously divided by any military escalation of the war."

Then that is concrete proof of nuclear considerations

Apparently, X will have to supply Y with all dividends thus making Y's position exactly the same as owning a share. I think the only difference is that Y can't sell the share? Then again, it can sell the IOU of the share to someone, and it probably costs the same as the share...

Irony: I am getting a "This site can be reached".