okey

Hardwired

As the post you are responding to pointed out, String::from converts from a string slice to a String. You didn't do this.

Your code fails to compile because it attempts to apply + to two string slices, and that is not implemented. @deathanatos also mentioned that.

You might find the Rust book page on Strings helpful: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/strings.html

Got any data to support that? (If you do, it makes my point even stronger...)

I'm not the original commenter, but according to glassdoor, the average salary for a senior in London is ~£61k, for front end devs ~£40k, and for generic devs ~£42k.

I think SandB0x was suggesting that if you want above average employees you may need to offer above average pay, although I'm aware that's not a literal interpretation of the comment.

Personally, I find the ideas behind Opendesk inspiring and I'd love to move to London... but the significant pay cut I'd have to take to work for you is more than I'm willing to pay. Sadly, ideas do not pay for rent or groceries.

Gripping the bike’s front wheel was the only way for riders to brake

This is not actually true - track bicycles, then and now, do not have a freewheel/freehub mechanism and the rider cannot coast. As a consequence you can use the drivetrain as a braking mechanism by applying back pressure on the pedals.

I think what you complaining about is really that Tolkein wasn't a moral relativist and that shows clearly in his writing.

This is different to the original complaint about a dichotomy - belief that some things are ultimately good and some other things are ultimately evil is not the same as dividing everything into rigid categories of only good or only evil.

Calling it a pilgrim's progress tale is a bit unwarranted, or at least overly reductionist - it's not that simplistic and that's only one aspect of LotR anyway.

A few grey areas off the top of my head: various elven decisions, Denethor, Frodo, Smeagol/Gollum, Saruman's initial study of ringlore. In Tolkien's writing, individuals do clearly good things, clearly bad things, difficult to judge things, and and things that are some combination of the previous three. All this happens within the framework of the very traditional overarching light v. dark theme (which is also the source of the association between evil and 'dark' and 'twisted' characterisations that some like to complain about).

A lot of it boils down to taste.

Exactly. Galadriel, Elrond, and Faramir also have the opportunity to take the One Ring, and choose not to. Sadly Faramir's rejection of it was not portrayed in the movies.

I agree he didn't invent the genre, although he certainly helped popularise and develop it.

"plenty" perhaps oversells the genre pre-Tolkien, and also afaik Jack Vance didn't start writing until well after The Hobbit was published, so I'm not sure he belongs on your list - William Morris would have been a much better example as a direct precursor to both Tolkien and Lewis.

Saruman did what he thought best, initially for noble reasons... and that turned out poorly.

This is part of the seductive power theme in LotR, which in general I consider something of a counterpoint to GGP's complaints about "simplistic morals" and "obvious dichotomy".

What is not addressed is that the article that inspired this post says in its second paragraph:

they were all dismissed by condescending “gurus” who simply said that we had mislocated our files (I had the free drive space to prove that wasn’t the case) or that we must have accidentally deleted the files ourselves (we hadn’t).

Further, even if it was operator error, "Is this Apple's fault? Sort of." is a pretty bizarre way to lead into "it's 100% Apple's fault that the UX is confusing"(last quote paraphrased).

Looks like it's just a bug caused by a recent patch. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=526413#c...

Ah, I wanted to know why viggity agreed with Lea, not for a list of reasons to use ad-block, but you make some good points... although I disagree about the presence of an implicit contract in the first place.

You agree that when viewing a public site whose main revenue model is ads, you enter an implicit contract to view those ads? If so, why? If not, why do you agree that being selective about what HTTP reqs you make is morally equivalent to theft just because the site owner expects you not to be and hopes to gain money off that?

I really hope that this view isn't widespread amongst W3C people. "Controlling what HTTP reqs my device sends is morally wrong because the server owner expects to monetise them" is absurd.

Evidently beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Whatsapp appears to have very little market share in the sparsely populated arse end of the world (Oceania), at least so far as I can tell. Not that that's exactly a large market, but still.

Your email isn't visible... (you need to put it in the About field if you want other users to see it.)

It contains so much speculation I'm not sure that what the author was trying to say even matters.

You say you wrote down everything you ate and its calorie value... what did you base calorie count on in situations where you ate out? E.g. lunch with the boss, &c. What degree of accuracy do you think is necessary?

Calling this SR2 might not be the best idea, given the intent of the original.

The problem with a default warning for signed/unsigned comparison is there are many cases of this in large existing codebases where, although it is not ideal, it doesn't do any harm. Such cases could constitute a large amount of compiler warning output - obviously just making life difficult for maintainers.

Personally I always use -Wextra (the relevant flag for clang) when working on my own code.

That is genuinely a significant chunk of the first lesson I ever had on C++. Near-essential compiler options (and why) were followed by Hello World, rather than the other way around.

That could be quite time inefficient, depending on where you live...

The original argument, perhaps, but that's certainly not how I interpreted "GPLv3 incompatibility does not make software non-free, otherwise Linux kernel would not be free anymore."

Just fyi, the Linux kernel is under GPLv2, not GPLv3, afaik.