Yeah, I miss living in Australia where you didn't have your own waiter but on the other hand that meant that it wasn't rude to flag down any of the wait staff if you need anything rather than being restricted to having to go through a single person.
bitcrafter
joined 11 months ago
Ah, yes, the good old git off --my lawn command.
Yes. My rule of thumb is that generally rebasing is the better approach, in part because if your commit history is relatively clean then it is easier to merge in changes one commit at a time than all at once. However, sometimes so much has changed that replaying your commits puts you in the position of having to solve so many problems that it is more trouble than it is worth, in which case you should feel no qualms about aborting the rebase (git rebase --abort) and using a merge instead.
The way I structure my commits, it is usually (but not always) easier and more reliable for me to replay my commits one at a time on top of the main branch and see how each relatively small change needs to be adapted in isolation--running the full test suite at each step to verify that my changes were correct--than to be presented with a slew of changes all at once that result from marrying all of my changes with all of the changes made to the main branch at once. So I generally start by attempting a rebase and fall back to a merge if that ends up creating more problems than it solves.
I’ve only met one other person that knew who/what Dvorak was/is, and also reportedly used that keyboard layout.
I experimented with it in University--I actually got a screwdriver and pried up and rearranged all of the keys on my keyboard within a week or so of starting--but after graduating I noticed that I was still slower at typing on Dvorak than I was on QWERTY so I gave up and changed back.
Wow! How does anyone not get swept off the ship under these conditions?
If by "constant" you mean "3D distribution that explains not just one equation but lots of separate observations", then sure, it's just like that.
Dark matter does interact with matter, though: it interacts gravitationally. It just does not interact in other ways (that we know of yet). All you would have to do to disprove the existence of dark matter is to show that some things interact with it gravitationally but others don't. However, this is not what we see; what we actually see is a whole bunch of separate things that all experience the effect of the existence of dark matter in the same way. It's effectiveness as an explanation in this regard is exactly what makes it so difficult to dethrone.
Just to be clear, there are lots and lots of different observations that are all explained by dark matter; it's not just a single term in "the math". Furthermore, the hypothesis presented in this article is not "better math" because it does not do as good a job as dark matter in explaining all of these observations.
Couldn’t the same be said for the proof of dark matter?
No, dark matter is actually a great explanation for lots and lots of observations; the only problem with it is that we don't know anything about it other than that it is such a good explanation for these observations.
Yeah, about a decade ago I tried using the Boost Graph Library because I needed a graph library for C++ and eventually had to give up because it was so heavily template-based that I couldn't figure out how to actually do anything with it.
No, it will be too busy making paperclips to even notice us, except as a nuisance getting in the way of it making paperclips that needs to be eliminated.