I mean read the first line: "Incineration of plastic waste in an open field"
I am not advocating an "open field". Incinerate it for energy, in a properly designed incinerator (which is existing technology in wide use). That article is talking about waste disposal, I'm talking about using it as fuel.
Also proper incineration can only be done in an incinerator, which burn much hotter and more completely than any pile of trash lit on fire. This is particularly important with plastics, where you really want to reach temperatures high enough to crack the dioxins apart.
I considered it, but didn't agree. Apparently, the admin agrees. Guess it should be mandated, or at least cleared up, when exactly should the year be included in the headline.
Bigger, better monitors are important accessories for the productive developer. Integrated graphics can't power those monitors. Most laptops sport only integrated graphics. Therefore most laptops are insufficient for the productive developer nowadays. There are a few scenarios where the developer's hardware should certainly be better than the user's, and screen space is one of them. Old hardware is not an excuse to stick to 1080p. Every developer should have moved to the much more spacious 1440p or 4K by now.
As a reasonably productive developer who has used both 4K and 1080p displays regularly, 4K has done very little for my productivity. It just looks good.
Are you serious? The "alien" here is just a metaphor to convey a basic concept. It couldn't even be used as an authority if we wanted it to be-- it's completely made up!
There are many easy ways to rephrase OP's comment into one that isn't so direct and denigrating. The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy.
"Direct", yes. "Denigrating", how?? I'm genuinely asking so I can fix that in the future, unless you think criticising is offending.
>The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy.
Again, I can do without the online pretend-therapy. Amazing how perceptive some people are that they deduce the most profound things from a dozen lines of text!
I wanted to say I found your original comment critical, but not offensive. But I found the reply made to you offensive, because personal and aggressive. Which I think is how you see it too.
However, it seems several people took the side of the replier.
So I reviewed your original comment, and I think I've found the problem: it exaggerated and labelled, e.g. droning, talk talk talk, talking about nothing, neverending paragraphs.
Many of these aren't literally true ("nothing", "neverending"). Others are emotionally loaded ("drone"). It's probably almost always better to speak directly, without exaggeration or emotion... but this is particularly important when criticizing.
I didn't notice these at first because I tend to filter out decoration, and just hear the content (i.e the literal meaning) - though this is much easier to do when I'm not personally involved!
I think, "to be blunt", to speak plainly, to get to the point, really mean to be factual and accurate - without emotional language, exaggeration or labeling.
Anyway, I notice dang asked to not continue this thread, but I was troubled by it, and reviewing it helped me - maybe it will help you too.
Maybe you should take a hint huh? If many people are telling you something about yourself (a subject you're inexorably biased on) you think maybe you should reconsider your position?
I can't believe we still have developers who are completely against defensive language design/style. Foot guns are real and deadly. The lack of a restrictive style guide in C++ is how you end up with one of these projects: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18554272
Why did they choose to implement various functional programming concepts from scratch? Were there really no suitable preexisting implementations at the time?
