Email? Instant Messenger? Issue tracker with email/SMS notifications? Phone?

Whatsapp? If Wuthering Heights can be played in semaphore, surely people creating software should be able to find a method to communicate?

Can any one give a reason for the graph being r-theta, or polar coordinate graph? This would have worked fine in a regular cartesian, or an X-Y graph.

Not really.

My life definitely took an upturn in late twenties and thirties. Yet I hate most of today's music. My teenage music had both good and bad music according to my present self ~40.

Best music was from 15-50 years before I was born - survival bias definitely plays a role there.

Geeks are stereotypically bullied in their teenage, and then earn better than their bullies - or so the tale goes, though that is not my story. If this has any truth, many slashdotters be similar.

Something fitting in maximum supported size of a database does not mean that performance of data manipulation with the database will meet the business criteria in the available budget.

OK, let me put it this way. Many Muslims do NOT believe in "god" - "La ilaha illillah". There is no god but Allah. Believing in "god" gets you a reserved place in hell.

No I don't say that at all. In fact the reason why they believe in god doesn't matter for this statement at all. I'm saying they believe mutually incompatible things, so "wisdoms of the crowds" are canceling each other.

The "problem" in halting problem is that the "language" should be Touring complete. Otherwise either there is no halting "problem", or it can be said that the problem has been solved in 1930s and 1940s. So Coq "solves" it, by not being Touring complete i.e. there was no problem in the first place for 50 years when Coq was invented.

SQL has existed for a longer time, and is a much better known non-Touring complete, halting problem "solved" language.

You didn't answer the question "Please tell me the living thing that is better at programming than human beings."

You made up another question and answered it - doing a "programming task" that "can be precisely defined".

So groups of humans remain the best known programming machines - where programming is defined as repeatably solving real world problems with computers. Which is what a vast majority of programmers do.

Yes, that would be great. But C, C++, Fortran, Perl also don't have it. Lisp and Haskell only get around it by being functional.

Which popular language have this feature?

Yes. Then you look at another large group of people, who are acting in certain other ways, and then you can only deduce that the common parts of these ways have a reason.

Now the common parts are demonstrably non-existent. Large number of people think Mohammed was greatest of all prophets, and belief otherwise is seriously wrong. Another large number of people believes that Jesus was the last of the prophets - he will come back but no one else except people peddling false gods. While simultaneously believing that belief otherwise is seriously wrong. History centric religions are mostly contradict each other.

So no conclusion can be drawn from these large groups of people.

Irrelevant. Scientists can reject science in some of their walks of life and excel in scientific enquiry in other walks of life. There is no contradiction there. I know people who reject coffee after sunset because it interferes with sleep , and guzzle it down during mornings.

Similarly memory olympic winners may write down their shopping lists, mathematicians might make a mistake in computing fuel efficiency of their cars, and doctors may not treat some disease they have. All this despite being excellent in their professions.

With this logic, aircraft have never needed windows in the passenger area. Yet only some freight aircraft are low in windows, most have 2 per passenger row.

Trains? Buses? TFA is idiotic.

That will be as bad as incompatibility between Gnome applications and other window managers, and incompatibility between systemd-logind and other init systems. Currently the Gnome-systemd gang is the most active in this area.

"Write your own" is not the correct answer to any of these incompatibilities, and never will be.

That's why I pointed to the "discussion", not the bugs. Read the discussion, if you want to understand my statement about their philosophy.

Bugs exist for more than a year, pushed back multiple times by Gnome. The fixes still aren't available for most cutting edge distributions' updates - e.g. Fedora, Arch.

For idiotic values of perfectly.

Just one of many threads being discussed :
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bi...

A KDE discussion :
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug....