You know, if you're a billionaire, you are almost certainly one on paper. You want a strong rule of law to protect your property. In places with weak laws, corruption runs rampant and the wealthy people are often whacked by other powers.
I see the Uber debate as being about something completely different than "COMPANIES BAD GOVERNMENTS GOOD". Some taxi regulations, as you helpfully point out, are indeed, obsolete. They can certainly use a refresh. How we handle this situation is the crux of the disagreement.
Uber wants to ignore the rules and do what makes sense. The government wants the rule of law to be meaningful. They are both right, but what we need to do is change the laws. Civil disobedience is one way to do that. Some people, the disruptive, see Uber as doing its part, but they are not.
Uber does not want the rules changed, they want profit. They're not being disobedient to better our world, they're being greedy and narcissistic.
Yes. In some jurisdictions, part of the taxi licensing requirements is vehicle inspection. Private cars don't receive similar scrutiny.
Did you now? How do we know? You have not identified yourself, yet you wish to take credit for being right? How the fuck does that work? You might be right, but you certainly can't claim credit for it unless you are credited for it.
That would be "rended". Rendered is something different: molten, melted.
It's both. Type import this from the interpreter, and you'll get this:
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
While it doesn't always manage it, if you read the discussions and PEPs relating to the language's design it's clear that the idea of a "Pythonic" way of doing things is one of the top considerations.
All of what you stated is convention, documentation and community-agreed definition of Pythonic. One can write Python that compiles and works that you will have trouble reading. One generally doesn't because when learning the language, the community and documentation lead one to a more Pythonic path.
Yes, I'm quibbling over words, not disagreeing that the idea of Pythonic code isn't useful or cool.
That is not a feature of the language, though. That is a feature of the community.
I suppose you are right, there's some cross shopping, but saying that the ASUS is similarly-sized is still pretty wrong. 30% is a large difference in the ultra-book market. And the Surface Pro 3 with a keyboard (the configuration that best compares against other clamshell ultrabooks) is almost two-and-a-half pounds.
Why speak of CPU and RAM when the discussion is regarding build quality?
I have yet to use an ASUS machine that is as well-built as a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air.
Rather than blindly assume that Apple's build-quality is marketing varopour-ware, as you are doing, or blindly assume that Apple's build-quality is worth the extra expense, as you accuse jcr of doing, why not actually compare the two products first hand and make a choice based on that?
By that logic, why did we start using USB? At one point, no one else had used it either.
A larger screen is not bad, but it is different. I look at an ultrabook as a portable machine. If I can have one inch less of screen diagonal for 33% less volume and 30% less weight, that's a win for me. My point was that when comparing two ultrabooks, size and weight are a pretty large part of their purpose. One also does not compare a Fiat 500 with a VW Golf. While they are both hatchbacks, one is huge compared to the other.
I can't speak for most people. I'm merely pointing out that comparing two ultrabooks, which exist to be ultra-portable, where one is a third larger and heavier, seems a strained comparison.
The problem is it weighs 32% more (2.6 lbs vs 2 lbs) and is 33% bigger (324mm x 226mm vs. 280mm x 196mm). It also does not have USB-C. It is slimmer though, at 12.1 mm!
So, it depends on what one means by similar specs. Over 30% heavier and bulkier in two dimensions is not similar for my needs.
The kind of timepieces that can be reliably passed down through generations rarely cost $600.
Yes, you need more ports, but they don't need to be on the computer itself. That's what hubs are for. Besides which, hubs are much more convenient, since you only need to plug in the hubs themselves, rather than needing to plug in every peripheral.
I'm honestly eager for the day when we can finally ditch cables coming out of our computers and can instead wirelessly link to hubs that will manage legacy cabled connections for us...ones which we can hide out of sight and mind in drawers of desks or other places where they don't need to be making things untidy. We're nowhere close yet, but we're getting there.
I think we're pretty close today, but not all the way. I have on my desk an iMac with it's two cables (power and Ethernet) routed down a cable-management system, wireless keyboard, wireless mouse. The only cable one would see is a MagSafe charging cable which is holstered on the left side and only really visible when charging the laptop. I have stowed for when I use it a wired gaming mouse (which does do Bluetooth but I prefer the cable).
So all in all, one cable, usually not visible.
"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger
