HN user
The important take away for me, is that it is a reminder that rewriting/refactoring is a big part of quality, and should be in the back of a creators mind when considering the ends.
The details may vary for each person's style.
It (whataboutism) is a favorite tactic of the "50 cent army." It's more to distract and sidetrack the topic.
More whataboutism, I read "skin in the game" it was ranty and poor, but beyond that, there is absolutely skin in the game for everyone when we are discussing a massive country falling into totalitarianism.
I like that advertising mascots were mentioned, like the Geico lizard. I also think software tools like standard Adobe illustrator tend toward a cartoon infantile look. Probably as a side effect for the need to make things vector scalable. It tends toward a flat big shape paradigm.
It also could be that companies like the idea of the customers as dependant upon the product, and infantilization fosters dependancy
Is it possible for a meteor to cause a chain of volcanoes to blow? like all the pressure under the crust gets rattled around?
Pony lang says 1/0=0
I say neigh (sorry if you didn't catch that joke, I'm a little horse).
If x/0 =0 then, since division is inverse of multiplication x= 0*0 this fails to hold for any x not 0
But the story says there is no defined multiplicative inverse of zero (undefined) so that they are free to choose any value they want. And they choose 0.
This is unsatisfactory to me because it seems to break the intuitive pattern of x/n getting larger as n approaches zero from the positives. 1/4 .25< 1/3 .33 < 1/2 .5 < 1/1 1 >1/0 0 >1/-1 -1 < 1/-2 -.5 < 1/-3 -.333
You see that sign flip thingy happening around 1/0?
Maybe I am misunderstanding.
This blows my mind and I have naive questions. How can the materials withstand such forces? Is a piece inside replaced (he said without taking it apart)? Is ablation a factor at all?