I had the same experience with Java and its looong lines of AbstractFactoryFactoryBuilders. Tabs + spaces offered the best of both worlds, and enabling whitespace visibility.
In the end it doesn't matter what's my preferred way of indenting code, the hardest part is always making people agree on it. So whenever a new project starts and the team needs to define code styling, we go with the language/IDE defaults. Anything else requires IDE setup and attention to indentation, which is too much to ask for when people barely pay attention to code quality.
This is not about protecting the files you share, it's about spammers abusing the file sharing mechanism to send you notifications. THEY share a file with you in order to trigger a notification and there's no way to block this.
I also have been receiving lots of these lately. I don't understand why "blocking everyone that's not in your contact list" is not a feature.
This thread below on Google Drive Help Center was closed with a response that you can now block a specific user — which is useless against a horde of bots.
Yep, I even tried to ask a very similar question with the very first sentence outlining I was aware you could block singular users but it's useless against hordes of bots, same response: https://support.google.com/drive/thread/142587006?hl=en
Are you more interested in fixing a process or fixing the problem?
Sending in-product feedback certainly could work because it's more likely to be seen by product management as it continues to roll in.
Support-driven product change requests are well intentioned but generally break down as a process internally. The working knowledge base and incentives are not properly aligned.
> Sending in-product feedback certainly could work
If it could work, we would have seen that happening. We have not, so we must assume it can't. Thus, asking to "send feedback in-product" is just a way to waste everyone's time. You avoid the negative stigma that is associated with knowing a problem exists and ignoring it, without having to undertake any concrete action. Corporate spin at it's finest.
I'm getting these recently too as Android notifications. It's very annoying and could be very unprofessional or hard-to-explain if one came in at the wrong time.
Me too, although FWIW on Android I opened Drive, then to "Settings" under the hamburger menu, then "Notification Settings", then I unchecked the "Shared items" notifications.
That may not work for you if you want shared item notifications, but I already get bombarded by a million different notifications for everything (sometimes I hate the modern world) and I sure as hell don't want shared item notifications - if something is important enough that I should read it, the person who shared it to me will email me about it.
I've been asking blocking feature since Gmail started inviting for beta testing. I'm one of the early Gmail testers. From day 1 I registered, I started received spams and I asked again and again, the response had always been non-sense like "our spam filters are good enough, you don't need to block anyone yourself". Really? So I never used Gmail as my primary email address. And this thing should be based on the exactly the same sh*tty logic. Never mind, I'm on the verge to ditch Google.
That's usually the case, but I was pleasantly surprised to read this book on my Kindle. The A5 format is quite readable, if you don't mind some of the tiny font size (I actually like it).
You're trying to convert the 3D world as we know it to 2D, but there's no such restriction. There are other constructs in 2D that can be used for the same purposes.
Take Game of life for example. It doesn't matter that you cannot make circuits without crossing wires in 2D, Game of Life is turing complete anyways. A computer based on GoL is totally unlike our 3D computers, but can have the same capabilities. There's no reason to think that it would be any different with biology.
Or you can try comparing our 3D world with a hypothetical higher dimension. Our intestines are hollow cilinders, stable in 3D but not suited for 4D — in 4D you can look inside a 3D cilinder just like we can look inside a 2D-sphere (a circle) from our 3D perspective. A 4D creature would probably have a very different, more efficient, structure for this use case (food containment and nutrient absorption), which they probably wouldn't be able to just translate to 3D.
Or you could just count the number of times their names are mentioned... Except neither approach really represents character importance accurately. Why just go the naive route when you can extract more information from your data by using a more complex approach?
The article actually counters your point exactly:
"For example, Arya Stark, Sansa’s younger sister, has the third most chapters with 34, but ranks behind Sansa in terms of network importance."
I don't think the naive approach is too far off in this case. Arya's importance is reflected in the sheer amount of exposition devoted to her. She's pretty clearly being set up to make a major return at some point, just as it is with Daenerys. The characters with a lot of network connections, on the other hand, are easy to kill off because they're ultimately redundant.
Welcome to the people who want to participate in serious discussions. You still have threads, and whole subreddits for that matter, with jokes. But before this tag, people who wanted a joke-free discussion were unable to do so on Reddit, and had to dig through piles of puns and jokes to get some thoughtful comments. Now we have space for both groups.
> But there’s still the concern that wearing a colored filter while taking the D15 test will alter the relative brightness of the chips, providing a context cue that can help subjects score higher.
I'm confused about this statement: isn't the whole point of these glasses to provide such clues? I may be more knowledgeable about the subject than the average Joe (I like reading about it), or I may be completely wrong (I'm no pro), but it's obvious to me that real color vision is indeed impossible without gene therapy -- you can't show to the brain what the eyes can't detect, at least not through the eyes. Do they claim it provides real full color vision? I don't even think this is testable, for that matter (qualia etc).
Our eyes essentially convert incoming light into three scalar values (one for each of our three cones, S, M, and L). The specific color blindness that this article is talking about is not really color blindness, but rather two of these cones overlapping more than usual. In theory, by filtering out the wavelengths of light in these overlapping regions, you can improve the wearers ability to perceive differences in color. Of course, this also affects percieved brightness, and their is no good way of knowing if the user is telling the difference based on the fact that the signal is being picked up by different cones, or the fact that it is being picked up as a different brightness.
Deuteranomaly/protanomaly are between them something like 2.5 times as common as deuteranopia/protanopia (other color vision deficiencies besides those four are very rare). So this should still be very helpful to most “colorblind” people.
I'm just not entirely convinced of the premise that energy consumption on that scale would be necessary for an advanced civilization. Particle accelerators would be a reasonable possibility though.
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of what Summers is saying. He's talking about a current slowdown in growth, and arguing for expansionary monetary policy. This article is claiming that there's a limited amount of growth that we can expect in the longterm, because we'll run out of sources of energy. But Summers isn't talking about energy as a limit..indeed, he's saying commodity prices are depressed.
The other article isn't entirely arguing that energy is a fundamental limit, although the example it gives is pretty hilarious. It's ultimately arguing that there are fundamentally limited things for capital to invest in and grow.
The only argument I see is that energy places a limit on growth. Now, one might think that if energy is one limit, there must be others, but I can't find that argument actually presented.
> Economist: But I have to object to the statement that growth must stop once
> energy amount/price saturates. There will always be innovations that people
> are willing to purchase that do not require additional energy.
I think you're getting this backwards--this is not an argument that there's more limits, it's an argument over whether limited energy actually implies limits to growth. What the economist says is "even if energy is limited, growth is not" and the physicist goes on to rebut that claim.
The rebuttal has to do with the definition of economic growth (assuming it isn't connected to energy consumption and gdp), which the economist argues has to do with quality of life. The rebuttal is that quality of life can only objectively improve to a certain point, and that the remaining measures aren't really quantifiable.
So the last, albeit minor, argument is that there would be a point where there isn't anything to invest in to grow, which essentially describes the ultimate form of secular stagnation. I think the economic counter-argument goes something like the money supply isn't inherently finite. I could see that being an interesting argument.
> [...] especially because you can't type it anymore without waiting
This was my thought when I saw this mapping for the first time, and when I started customizing my vimrc I opted for using caps lock as well. It didn´t take long for me to change that and start using kj instead -- in the end it was more common for me to type constants in all-caps than typing "Reykjavik."
In the end it doesn't matter what's my preferred way of indenting code, the hardest part is always making people agree on it. So whenever a new project starts and the team needs to define code styling, we go with the language/IDE defaults. Anything else requires IDE setup and attention to indentation, which is too much to ask for when people barely pay attention to code quality.