I've seen nightmares in C++ APIs with something as simple as the max() function. Sometimes it's as simple as someone re-"#define"-ing the symbol...

*cough*<windows.h>*cough*

Not only that but with "over 26 million" builds over a period of 9 months is approximately 1 build per working hour per dev. Sounds kind of excessive.

Really?! Not to me.

Let's say you're only actually coding half the time you're at work. Now you're talking 2 builds per hour, or one every 30 minutes. I can't speak for everyone, but I start getting pretty antsy if I haven't at least built, let alone tested, what I've been working on for that long. And we haven't even gotten into things like dealing with the failures. It's easy to go through multiple builds in almost no time at all as you see a silly syntax error or whatever, fix, and rebuild. Or even in testing: hit an assertion, look into it for 2 minutes, see what's wrong, fix, rebuild, rerun, repeat.

Yes, he was teaching you to turn off warnings for certain operations so that when the warning was really significant it wouldn't happen.

Is that better or worse than teaching someone to leave warnings on for those operations and then not noticing when a really significant one appears because it's buried in an avalanche of other output?

Errr... what?

Care to give a quick summary of what the alternative is?

And of course everyone always builds with the same configuration, same compiler, on the same platform.

(We have CI servers in our environment. They break not infrequently. Why? Because someone commits a change that builds fine on Linux, and when MSVC gets ahold of it, it produces a warning that GCC doesn't catch and so the build fails. Or MSVC accepts some piece of code that is not actually legal C++ because it's too loose, so when the Linux buildbots get ahold of it, they complain.)

The biggest thing I miss from CRTs is the ability to dim them below "actually still pretty bright". The only LCD I've seen that actually gets fairly dark is the one on my camera.

Incidentally, I should point out that wind chill, as it's measured in the US, tries to incorporate effects other than just an increase in the rate at which the warmed air is swept away from something warm by the wind. Those effects, e.g. facts dealing with the fact that your skin is wet and the air is dry, will not apply to solar panels.

Wind chill does not affect inanimate objects. Yes they might cool down to the ambient temperature faster but they will never go lower than the ambient temperature regardless of the wind speed.

The second half of the second sentence doesn't imply the first sentence. If you have something heated to above ambient (e.g. a structure meant for living), a wind chill absolutely will cause you to spend more heating it.

"Wind chill won't cool thing below the actual temperature" is (almost) a solid statement. "Wind chill does not affect inanimate objects" is a BS way of overgeneralizing that into falsehood.

She was told 'no' because she went through a carefully thought out and vetted process designed to deal with a very limited supply of a very important item (an organ). The parents decided to escalate the issue and brought the courts in - which was completely inappropriate (if understandable). This was a 'think of the cute little child' moment and had nothing to do with 'death panels' or rationing.

Exactly. The courts got involved, and saved the girl's life. But what about the person who they thus killed who otherwise was going to get that organ? (Or maybe person #4 on the list, who was going to get the organ that #3 wound up getting because person #2 wound up getting the organ that #3 was going to get because #1 got the organ that #2 was gonna get because the girl got the organ that #1 was gonna get.)

If your example is meant to be illustrating how the courts were correcting the "death panels" taht set the guidelines by which she was denied... how does that not make the courts just the new death panels?

I'm not going to Bush's fault you. What I will say was that all the "omg death panels" nonsense was presented as if there was some change from the current status quo, or at least without saying "omg this moves the death panels from the companies to the gov't! oh noes!" It was presented as if the death panels were an argument against gov't health care, while that argument would then equally (or, arguably, more, as private health care has a direct profit motive and government health care can at least pretend to not) apply to "we should scrap the current system."

Two more pros:
- Blind people can vote unassisted
- Theoretically should have absolutely no tabulation error

I can hear some people saying "It forces suspense in the game! You don't know when the next safe place is!".

What I think would be an ideal compromise if you want to make a game that you can only save at checkpoints is to allow saves anywhere, but you can only ever load an arbitrary save once. It suffices for the "I need to take a break" use case while still preventing save scumming, which I'd argue can definitely have implications beyond personal well just don't save if you don't like it "ethics".

The question equally applies to games on any even remotely-recent console...

I am not sure. It's possible there aren't any competing cars that are compatible with the Tesla. They could easily enough put into place some DRM-style stuff.

Yes.

The energy costs are probably almost non-existent compared to the installation costs for the superchargers (IIRC, many or all of them need dedicated substations), Tesla has a lot of room to play with because of how expensive their cars are, and it's a nice sales draw to say "hey you don't even have to worry about the hassle of paying."