Haven’t been much of a cook in a while, but for some reason the part of my brain that recalls these things really wants me to suggest using a pressure cooker for beans. I honestly don’t know if that’s a good idea. I apologize for this information.
Thanks for the link. Reading it gave me a headache. Not because of the proposal, but because of the very clear explanation it includes of just how annoying time zones are. I never even thought about the fact that a time relative to a UTC timestamp isn’t uniquely associated with another UTC timestamp because the local UTC offset can change. It’s obvious when you say it, but now I’m wondering if I have more time zone bugs somewhere.
I’d rather have an explicit time zone any time a datetime is being passed around code as a string. Communicating it to a human is relatively safe since even if there’s a mistake, it’s directly visible. Before that last step, incorrect time zone parsing or implicit time zone assumptions in code that was written by “who knows” in the year “who knows” can be really annoying.
Nothing wrong with it, it’s just boring. Fish shell has some new features that make it nice to use. So does zsh. Tab completions, history navigation, plugins and such.
And that simple model, well-defined model didn’t properly account for juxtaposition, which is how different fields have ended up with two different ways of interpreting it, i.e. strong vs. weak juxtaposition.
No, that’s just not what happened. “Strong juxtaposition,” while well-defined, is a post-hoc rationalization. Meaning in particular that people who believe that this expression is best interpreted with “strong juxtaposition” don’t really believe in “strong juxtaposition” as a rule. What they really believe is that communication is subtle and context dependent, and the traditional order of operations is not comprehensive enough to describe how people really communicate. And that’s correct.
Considering your degree specialisation is in solving arithmetic problems
My degree specialization is in algebraic topology.
I don’t see the issue with them asking you to put your money where your mouth is and spit out a number if it’s so easy
The issue is that this question disregards and undermines my point and asks me to pick a side, arbitrarily, that (as I’ve already explained) I don’t actually believe in.
Ironic that you tell me to check my reading comprehension right after you misquote me, but nonetheless that is the impression your responses have given off - and you haven’t done anything so far to dispel that impression.
I didn’t misread, you’re in denial.
Yes, and the question everyone is asking you is what is that unambiguous way? Which side of weak or strong juxtaposition do you come out on?
Hopefully by this point in the comment you understand that I don’t believe the question makes sense.
The value judgement was actually more to do with your choice of example, and how you applied that example to this debate. It gave me the distinct impression that you view this debate as not worth having, as anybody who does juxtaposition differently from you is wrong out the gate - and again, your further responses only reinforce my impression of you.
Again, that’s your fault-- you’ve clearly misinterpreted what I said. If I didn’t think this conversation was worth having I wouldn’t be responding to you.
“Which ruleset do you consider correct” presupposes, as the comment said, that there are 2 rulesets. There aren’t. There’s the standard, well known, and simplified model which is taught to kids, and there’s the real world, where adults communicate by using context and shared understanding. Picking a side here makes no sense.
Calculators do not implement “what conventions are typically used in practice.” Entering symbols one by one into a calculator is a fundamentally different process from writing them in a sentence. A basic traditional calculator will evaluate each step as you enter it, so e.g. writing 1 + 2 * 3 will print 1, then 3, then 6. It only gets one digit at a time, so it has no choice. But also, this lends itself to iterative calculation, which is inherently ordered. People using calculators get used to this order of operations specifically while using calculators, and now even some of the fancy ones that evaluate expressions use it. Others switched to the conventional order of operations.