|
I googled what "OnlyFans" was, and that turns out to be disturbing on many levels, not just the pedant in me ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't that be "for us pedants"? 
(The same form as "for us the living")
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
As usual, it takes a foreigner to point out our bad English. 
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: it takes a foreigner
I beg your pardon! I, my parents, and three out of four of my grandparents were all born in London. We emigrated to Israel when I was a child.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
In that case, I apologise.
|
|
|
|
|
No need to apologise. I just wanted to point out that grammar is not quite extinct even among the "youf". 
Sorry if I came on a bit too hard.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Sorry if I came on a bit too hard.
Be assured you did not, no apology necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, self-identifying, very good.
|
|
|
|
|
Almost certainly not! 
The ellipsis after 'pedants' indicates this phrase is part of a sentence, in which case the subject would be 'pedants' and the previous pronoun would take the same form - as in "We the people...".
The grammar pedant strikes again! 
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I was wrong.
(Wouldn't be the first time...)
EDIT:
It all depends on whether Madison or Lincoln was the better grammarian.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
modified 14-Nov-22 1:37am.
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible to construct a sentence following the ellipsis where 'pedants' is not the subject, but it would be a cumbersome construct.
|
|
|
|
|
But, what would be the target of 'for'?
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
5!! ~= 6.6895029134491270575881180540904e+198
That is about 4.84e+188 times older than the universe, assuming that the units are years (and that the universe is 1.38e10 years old)
I may be a pedant but I am not pedantic
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the units would be U.S. Dollars, but I didn't research it further.
|
|
|
|
|
The Calculator on my Mac says
5! = 120
120! = Not a number. (Actually starts at 102!)
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
Use Stirling's Approximation to estimate N! for larger N.
ln(n!) = n ln(n) - n + O(ln(n))
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I used the calculator that comes as part of Windows (in Scientific mode)
|
|
|
|
|
I had a boss one time who personally disliked wizard type interfaces in software. He disliked them so much that he used to design screens and dialog boxes with every step of a multistep process presented all at once. That's right, every button, every textbox, every checkbox that you might encounter in a multistep process all on screen at the same time.
It was extremely difficult to make this work when there were many steps in the particular screen being developed. There were just way too many different states that the screen could be in at any one time to be manageable.
Have you ever had a boss who placed unrealistic constraints on your work? And what were some of those constraints?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
As a general rule I dislike wizards as well, but I prefer to keep my dialogs simpler. The problem with wizard interfaces is they tend to be too many dialogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Wizards use a step by step process to accomplish a finished state.
Just a flow chart.
The granularity is usually the rub.
Too many steps, the user loses scope and/or trajectory.
Too few and the user is not satisfied with customization.
So how many steps is enough? 1, 2 ...
The point is a "Wizard" of some kind is needed.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I am but a humble user. Yesterday I filled in a satisfaction survey for Argos, which claimed to be quite short. Some of the boxes I checked produced further lists of checkboxes. I started to lose patience, and eventually by experiment chose options which did not produce further checkboxes, in order to finish the thing. Some of the extra checkboxes included questions which had already been asked anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Often my boss has "simple ideas" that turn into a real nightmare to realize, one of them was combining all config files of our Windows applications in C# into one master config file.
Very handy for the guys of support was his reasoning, but not so handy to realize sadly.
I made a clunky implementation with mutexes that will guarantee trouble in the future when new inexperienced developers will have to write applications for this mess ...
|
|
|
|
|
I actually work for a guy like that. I live in the UI, and many times he'll walk in and ask for this "one little change" which is cataclysmic to my code base (I refuse to willingly bastardize the code).
Interestingly, most of the time this is a requirements issue - he has an idea and hasn't completely conveyed to me what problem we're solving. The ultimate agile development ....
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I had a boss that asked me to remove an empty lines from all .c, .cpp files for better performance.
Another boss liked to remove all comments from the source code, because good code should be self-descriptive.
Finally, I managed to get an exclusive permission from both of them, to use empty lines and write comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
