I also wrote this, but I wrote it in Pascal in 1987, beating the author by 3 years unless his rounding function is broken.

Mine also sucked.

Still, procedural generation remains the next big thing, and applying it to something as simple as a text-based map, limited to two dimensions and "wall" or "not a wall" is nostalgic for many, and interesting for those who did not do the same project in some fashion.

The need for multiple cores did not exist - it just happened to be the hardware available, I assume. It was probably not optimized for parallelization, so it probably did not use more than one core.

I'm sorry that your accomplishment at the age of 13 spoiled your understanding of someone who did almost exactly the same thing, but that's exactly what happened here. You and at least 3 other idiot moderators.

Why is it that

Self-selected readership who, at one point in their lives, were probably complimented and/or tormented for being intelligent, thus making it a component of their personality.

Preconceived notions which survive evidential disproving, making it easy to discard any summary based on the headline, or any article based on the summary.

Also, a rotating vocal minority who read a few words and immediately have to type their thoughts, because no one could possibly understand the topic more than them - as evidenced by their grade school experiences.

Welcome to dotslash.

It is exceedingly difficult for most people to routinely consider that other people exist outside of their own experience, and the amount of personal anecdote offered here as a rebuttal of statistics is a testament to just that sort of short mindedness.

In other words, these people are human, and flawed in the same ways that humans are. They just don't realize it unless you point it out in sometimes increasingly caustic replies depending on the nature of their transgression.

Do you have a specific link? Because the ones I saw basically said that Google is taking legal advantage of the Open part of Open Street Map.

Again, I submit data to an Open platform, and some asshole decides to Open the platform.

Is this not allowed? If not, could you post something more relevant?

That's funny, you don't sound like Chaucer.

Are you a gay girl or a knave girl? Because you are obviously a girl.

Unless maybe language changes due to usage, which is exactly what happens.

Eat a dick, kill yourself, stop being stupid. Choose at least one, and preferably 3 or more.

Not clear in the sibling comments is that word has its own diff, in the revision area. The differences show as tracked changes.

Obviously not a solution here, but it seems lots of people aren't aware of it.

I added streets to osm and google maps had the data a few weeks later. I know it my osm data because I didn't know one street name, left it as the initial unique identifier, and that's what showed up.

I assume google has a priority list, and uses navteq or the other atlas whatever before osm data, if present. If not, use osm.

Isn't further comment supposed to come from us, the commentators?

The reaction you have about hypotheticals is largely irrelevant, since you mention posters and readers here. No matter what, someone is going to post something insanely stupid, and someone else is going to moderate it positively. It happens on nearly every story, unless it is just not interesting at all to anyone. Then we get at least 40 comments all sucking each others' dicks.

So post some facts yourself, or fuck yourself sideways with a rusty rake. Do you have a point, or are you going to just talk to yourself for a good long while? What is your objection here, to this specific story?

The study was by a woman (and her team I assume) looking at comments about her previous study about how society views gender. The conclusion was that men discriminate and women feel discriminated against.

She looked at these comments, attempting to determine if the commentator was male or female, and broadly classify the comment's content as accepting or dismissing the conclusion.

I get a really strong sense of selection bias (self selection), and the author generally taking the position that the original study's conclusion is true. While I don't dispute that, it seems really easy to make a mistake when classifying comments directed at your work, and therefore being very personal, and possibly making bad decisions about methodology.

I can in no way support this study, even though its conclusions are fairly obviously correct.

I have always understood it to be an external observation. A seemingly normal person plus anonymity can appear to be a total fuckwad. That obviates any jekyll-and-hyde personality change.

In other words, almost exactly your last sentence.

It also represents the case where someone who is only a partial fuckwad in real life appears "normal" in person and as a complete fuckwad on the internet. That is a more typical scenario, given that the number of partial fuckwards is on a sliding scale, and only a few of those are the total fuckwads. And you dis say "was a fuckwad" instead of "was a total fuckwad".

Given that presumption, anonymity exacerbates the fuckwad's fuckwadity, rather than simply uncovering it as you suggest, which is the point.

That's the whole point - you have your own unqualified opinion, and everyone else (the statistical "everyone") operates using the opposite as being an unstated assumption.

When you say "everyone is a medical expert", I understand you to mean that people assert the things they understand and hold true, regardless of whether it has any basis or has been debunked. And if I look at SystemD comments, as in a sibling post, it's a bunch of sound bites that are really just fronts for the opinion "I disagree".

And, of course, it all boils down to a person's feeling that what they believe is true, is true. Men in this study do not acknowledge a bias and women do, men believe that gender role division is a natural outcome and women do not. And, so many people here can't believe that the default state is something other than scepticism - because that's how their understanding of the world works.

And changing these understandings and behaviors is like farting in a hurricane.

In conclusion, QI has not yet located compelling evidence that Henry Ford is responsible for this quotation. The expression of the concept underlying the saying apparently evolved over a period of decades with an initial cite by 1930. The record is still incomplete, so it is best to view this post as a snapshot of the most salient evidence known to QI.

That's what your link says, not "he never said it".

And then you say that it's important to be accurate.

And then two morons moderate you positively.

Is it any wonder I created a username solely to tell people they are wrong and should not ever post anything on the internet until they are old enough?

There were 6 paragraphs prior to that quote that explain why. You can disagree with it, but "why" is answered, and the case is certainly made for the meaning that people commonly use, which isn't exactly every single person.

Here's an example, the sentence right before the one that was quoted:

If someone in marketing or finance or HR has an idea for a new app, they should be able to take matters in their own hands.

No, that's the worst idea ever. There's a reason we have change control in a nearly infinite possibility of combinations, and there are plenty of other things wrong that I'm sure you can identify.

If you want me to keep thinking for you, keep being an idiot. No, wait, then I'll have to uphold my end of the bargain. Just stop posting until you have something to contribute.

That sounds like something diceslot would do. Well, obviously wouldn't, but would, you know what I mean.

And hell no, that's a nice rake. I've been keeping it very rusty, just for one specific asshole. I don't know if you have tried to maintain a rusty rake, but believe me, it is almost a full time job making sure that rake is rusty enough, and that the handle won't jut break off wherever it feels it might want to. The handle must be disciplined.

I'd actually like to know how best to discipline a rusty rake handle, if it were from a frequent contributor. Since you disclaim being a frequent contributor, you opinion is invalid, and your rake is not yours.

Still, hugs.

It this were FOIA, I'd defend you. But no, it's not. It's about Jeb releasing mails to Jeb.

"Mails to Jeb released in response to FOIA" is a FUCKTON different from "Jeb releases everything for apparently no real reason."

FOIA has a protocol to classify or hide information as appropriate. Jeb does not have such a protocol.

Your idiotic post said that Jeb = FOIA, and you should be kicked in the gender-specific gonads or, lacking those, appropriately burned in strategic places for suggesting such.

FOIA is a risk that people who communicate with their elected, or otherwise, official, take. Jeb deciding to repeat everything, verbatim, available to spammers and citizen vigilantes, without any relevant FOIA request, is a completely different thing. It's a completely different fucking ballpark.

"Aint no f*ckin' ballpark neither. Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touchin' his wife's feet and stickin your tongue in the holiest of holies aint the same f*ckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same f*ckin' sport. Look, foot massages don't mean shit."

I'm rooting for the American voter. Who are you rooting for?