Choosing to have a child later on generally has fewer negative consequences than unchoosing a child you have already had.

Have you really not heard of it? It is a new architecture that is a bit better than x64_64.

Every one had already been launched.

Easy: recognizing bird calls on my phone.

Sometimes this can help, but lately I’ve been running into the opposite problem where people have been following this advice to such a degree that one cannot ever figure out what is going on without having to constantly jump around to find the actual code involved in doing something.

Because some of us are bitter at the trees for generating so much pollen at this time of year and want revenge.

Spotted the INTERCAL programmer.

Because it looks like that functionality uses special compiler functionality only available on GCC and clang?

“This isn’t us encouraging you to gamble-it is us asking you to think about how bad you would feel years from now if you learned that you could have made a ton of money if you had only placed a bet right now! It’s completely different!”

Ah, yes, the good old git off --my lawn command.

Yes. My rule of thumb is that generally rebasing is the better approach, in part because if your commit history is relatively clean then it is easier to merge in changes one commit at a time than all at once. However, sometimes so much has changed that replaying your commits puts you in the position of having to solve so many problems that it is more trouble than it is worth, in which case you should feel no qualms about aborting the rebase (git rebase --abort) and using a merge instead.

The way I structure my commits, it is usually (but not always) easier and more reliable for me to replay my commits one at a time on top of the main branch and see how each relatively small change needs to be adapted in isolation–running the full test suite at each step to verify that my changes were correct–than to be presented with a slew of changes all at once that result from marrying all of my changes with all of the changes made to the main branch at once. So I generally start by attempting a rebase and fall back to a merge if that ends up creating more problems than it solves.

I’ve only met one other person that knew who/what Dvorak was/is, and also reportedly used that keyboard layout.

I experimented with it in University–I actually got a screwdriver and pried up and rearranged all of the keys on my keyboard within a week or so of starting–but after graduating I noticed that I was still slower at typing on Dvorak than I was on QWERTY so I gave up and changed back.

I can understand this view for early backers (I’m one of them) but what about people who decided to drop money on the game in the last 2 or even 5 years? Were they also scammed despite hundreds of articles about delays, issues and thousands of people yelling about a scam every time SC is mentioned?

Maybe, maybe not, but is entirely possible to be scammed while also being in a position where you should have known better; the two are not mutually incompatible.

The root of the problem is that you think of momentum as being defined to be the product of something’s mass and its velocity, but this is actually only an approximation that just so happens to work extremely well at our everyday scales; the actual definition of momentum is the spatial frequency of the wave function (which is like a special kind of distribution). Thus, because photons can have a spatial frequency, it follows simply that they therefore can have momentum.

Something else that likely contributes to your confusion is that you probably think that where something is and how fast it is going are two completely independent things, but again this is actually only an approximation; in actuality there is only one thing, the wave function, which is essentially overloaded to contain information both about position and momentum. Because you cannot pack two independent pieces of information into a single degree of freedom, it is not possible for position and momentum to be perfectly well defined at the same time, which is where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from.

I’m not the one you asked, but what I like isn’t really about PHP itself, but the fact that I can get dirt cheap hosting with PHP and MySQL.

Oh, wow, I looked a little into this and hosting really is dirt cheap! That is a benefit that I genuinely was not expecting.

Either way, it’s an awesome language, happily been using it for decades now

Mind taking a moment to share why you like it? I am not very familiar with it.

I appreciate this sentiment a great deal in general, but sometimes it is difficult to uphold when I have to regularly deal with “time vampires” who not only require that I explain the same thing to them over and over again beyond reason but who also show no willingness or ability to actually learn the thing that I am explaining to them; at some point I just run out of patience and start ignoring them to the extent that I am able.

If the appellate court is unhappy with the lower court’s ruling, then there is no reason for it not to reverse it and tell Microsoft to stop the process of merging with Activision until the proceedings have completed. Admittedly this outcome might be inconvenient for Microsoft and Activison, but it is not the job of the court to care about this.

Yes, of course they have complained to the courts. That’s not the point.

That is moving the goalposts. In your other comment, you said, “What is the FTC going to do about it? Most likely do nothing, or issue a stern warning.” I have demonstrated that they are doing neither of these things but instead are going through the courts to get injunctive relief.

This simply will go nowhere, or do you expect that the court will somehow separate Activision out of Microsofts hands again to fix this?

If the appellate court decides that the lower court erred in its reasoning, then there is no reason why it could not issue such an order. It is not like this would be the first time that the government broke up a company.

Or punish the managers at Microsoft and make them withdraw the execution plan to remove redundant jobs?

There is no reason why the court could not issue an injunction preventing it from executing this plan until the proceeding concludes.

At the end of it, Microsoft will eventually pay a small, symbolic sum which they consider “cost of conducting business”. Nothing more.

If the FTC considered this to be a sufficient remedy then they probably would have settled with Microsoft by now rather than taking this to the courts.