They are less likely to offend others and discourage people from contributing to the project.
>Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it
>was a good idea to read things ONE FCKING BYTE AT A TIME with system
>calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the fck does
>idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering
>that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?
Surely there are better ways to express a point without going at great length attempting to offend someone else. If you believe this sort of abusive attitude is acceptable, then why shouldn't people provide feedback with their fists as well? It can carry a similar degree of persuasion.
It also dissuades other people who may not make mistakes from contributing. I’m certainly not getting involved with a community run by someone who mirrors past abuse I’ve experienced, for example.
Then it's an inefficient method to do so, because along with discouraging these particular people, it may also discourage many other productive and competent developers who don't wish to condone this sort of abusive leadership.
Unless there's some demonstrated correlation that this subset of people is likely to be less productive contributing to a project like Linux, then this would just be bad leadership on behalf of Linus who'd exclude potential contributors based on personal whims.
You might consider simply emailing back with "please don't make mistakes contributing to the project". That works really well with me and everyone else I know. I don't need to be bullied to be convinced.
Then that’s not a particularly nice thing to do. People naturally make mistakes, and I’m pretty sure that the consensus is that belittling them when they do doesn’t really help.
I can't see why the Show More content couldn't be rendered server-side, fetched with AJAX and plugged into the DOM with two lines of JS. SSR, no redirect nor refresh, progressive reveal af.
Autonomous car:
- drives pretty much on a plane
- able to stop when confused
- precise speed and direction control
- stable (i.e. does not oscillate or slide)
- uses the same environment (the actual road) for reference and "handling" (tire grip)
- anyone with IQ > 70 can drive one
Autonomous sailplane:
- flies in 3D space with pitch, roll, yaw
- has both MAX (Vne) and MIN (stall) speed, can't stop and wait
- can't even stop descending (!)
- HEAVILY influenced by wind and thermal conditions
- pretty unstable, oscillates when upset
- can not use ground as visual reference reliably
- flying one is no joke even for a human, requires serious training
Autonomous car is harder than autonomous plaine. An autonomous plane can be flown with near-zero accidents by dGPS and traffic control alone. Try that with a car ;) . But take an autonomus plane, add an atmospheric model - you can have an autonomous sailplane.
It can be FLOWN with near zero-accidents by dGPS and control alone. That's steady/level flight, not counting issues with weather, launching, landing, and responding to in-flight emergencies. In a driving failure case, you crash or slow down, and you generally keep the accident constrained to the road. In a flying failure case, you've got a high-speed projectile moving in 3 directions.
Flown = Takeoff, flight, landing, emergencies handling.
What pilots usually do during emergency is to go through the checklist. There is not much room for improvisation.
Vehicles - it is a completely different level of problem. If you try to drive with dGPS alone, you will collide almost immediately. Even on the empty road, because dGPS is not good enough. And actually, it is almost AGI-complete problem, as you need to model and interact with other traffic participants.
For a smallish project we're using Rails + PostgreSQL with just Bootstrap for the UI. With TurboLinks and remote actions that respond with JS snippets the site feels fast enough without all the weird SPA machinery.
> European cities get by fine without cars in city centers.
Where did you get that from? Some of them, sometimes, with exceptions, with mixed success.
Certainly not Prague (which is where I live). The public transport system is absolutely fantastic, but as of now it's at 100 % capacity (locally) and the city center is still full of cars. People need to move stuff, plumbers, electricians can't haul their tools around in a bag, the streets need to remain perfectly accessible for ambulances and firetrucks.
Don't forget that most European cities are hundreds of years old, built on river banks, rocks, hills, the complete opposite of most US cities.
> Don't forget that most European cities are hundreds of years old, built on river banks, rocks, hills, the complete opposite of most US cities.
What, do you think that North America is a minecraft flatworld? Plenty of American cities are built on variable terrain. The city I live in, Weehawken (Lenape for "rocks bigger than trees"), is bisected by a 300 foot sheer cliff called "The Palisade" because it looks like a castle wall. You have to take an elevator or a long staircase if you want to get uptown.
The only US cities designed from the ground up with cars in mind are in the western desert valleys where nobody could reasonably live until air conditioning was invented: Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles. Many German cities were being rebuilt almost from scratch at the same time. Munich, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Dresden, and Berlin all had to be almost completely replaced. Their maps were redrawn with cars in mind, and they managed to stay largely walkable.
Meanwhile, London has roughly the same transit woes as New York. Was London founded after the invention of the car? No! Unlike the planners of Munich and Dresden and Hamburg, London's rebuilders after the war prioritized automobiles over people, and it shows.
New York got its modern street layout in 1807, the same year Napoleon conquered Bohemia, and I'm pretty certain he didn't enter Prague in an open-top car.
Car-centric city planning isn't a natural phenomenon, it is an intentional choice, and it can be undone at any time.
