I don't think this is correct - coq does not have a /u/ sound in /cok/ but coke is pronounced /couk/ (sorry for the completely unortodox phonetic language).
Well, it entirely depends where you live. The GP's comment make perfect sense where I am, and seem a good explanation, but sure, depends on how you pronounce 'coke'!
Not trying to be childish, but let's be honest, this is a horrible name if you are not a native english speaker. I just hear giggles every time somebody mentions this name...
For the record, French speakers also have at first a hard time with the "bit" word that is usually pronounced at the very beginning of any introductory CS class. Indeed, it has the same figurative meaning as "cock" in English. Worse, you can find it in compounds such as "32-bit" or "bitfield", so try figure out the evocative power of those expressions.
Usually and fortunately though, the average person simply grows up and stops giggling at the word quite quickly. And so do Coq users.
Define "the authors". Gérard Huet, who wrote the software almost 35 years ago was definitely aware of the meaning, and indeed this was done in order to overtly piss off the prudish Amercians.
In the current core development team, I think it is reasonable to say that most people range somewhere on a scale from "don't care" to "mildly annoyed". Amongst the annoyed group, some actually advocate for a change of name.
This is a horrible name even for native english speakers. I still have to coach people not to giggle whenever I bring up LaTeX - unless it's exclusively vocally in which case the "lah-TECH" puts their mind elsewhere.
I kinda miss those times where you could talk about those Thinkpad clits at work and no one would bat an eye. The degree of puritanism of the new generation is a bit terrifying.
I don't think it's puritanism, it's just keeping things separate. In an office we're all there to work and not get embroiled in relationship drama - so calling that nub a clit is just unnecessarily bringing sex into things.
... in some (BDSM fahig?) circles? I know it's used there, but there are quite a lot of other things I think of before that. And some colleagues I just asked as well.
Coq means a rooster in French that is not a usual name for theorem prover by itself. Therefore Coq developers should have thought that it is at least an interesting (and more likely, funny) idea to name it after an animal, much like CHICKEN Scheme.
Google's corporate mission is "to organize the world's information" - that includes your biometrics - "and make it universally accessible and useful" (for adtech industry).
And let's be clear that by "healthcare providers," we mean insurance companies.
And by "timely advice," we mean notifications that you need to shop for new insurance, because they've detected that you have become a riskier bet and are dropping your coverage.
And higher premiums because they can detect some anomaly in your heart rhythm. Oh sorry we can't insure you because Google sold us your fitbit info and you have a preexisting condition you aren't aware of.
I don't know about selling it healthcare providers but integrating it as an audience with Google Ad's seems like the likely path. They know your location, now it's knowing your body data to target an audience segment.
If you thought Google knew a lot about you before...
There are massive potential benefits to mass medical data collection and analysis. From early detection and prevention of epidemics to individualized, detailed, precise medical advice (e.g. you, specifically, might be fine eating lots of fat, but have an obscure risk factor involving, say, olives or almonds or something.)
To me it seems clearly insane to give that much power to such a relatively unaccountable entity.
There's a competitor to Fitbit and one thing coming down their pipeline can detect blood alcohol level. They are about to enter a market in a staunchly Muslim nation. See the potential for problems?
This is where good docstrings come in handy. Personally, I think a dict with parameters is better than an endlessly growing method parameters. You can control it a bit further by using tuples instead of dicts for the same idea.
It's another "I'm scared of google tracking this thing but can't give a reason why" episode. It's bad if law enforcement has your location data because...? Are you a criminal?
> It's bad if law enforcement has your location data because...?
I'm on the lax and forgiving end of the privacy debate but even I find this statement breathtaking.
Would you be as cavalier about giving up other similar protections? i.e. unwarranted search, self-incrimination etc. They can all be attacked with similar "if you've done nothing wrong..." arguments.
Again, deflecting the question at hand. Please give an example of when in your everyday life will it hurt you or anyone that law enforcement knows where you are
