My experience with multiple subreddits is that subreddits which disabled downvote button (by custom CSS style, it's still there if you really need it) tend to have much more friendly and polite discussion, very much like HN.
Subreddits of comparable size and/or field which keep downvote button tend to be extremely argumentative and full of flames. Getting downvoted turns off your reason and you start seeing the thing not as a friendly argument but as a fight. And so does the other side. The result is ugly.
!wa, !imdb, !yt, !mtg etc. are extremely useful !bangs.
Even !gi and !gm are much faster than going through Google.
This is the real reason why I strongly prefer DDG to Google. If Google started supporting !bangs, I might consider going back but !bangless search just feels wrong.
You are entirely wrong. If everyone earns 10x more and everything costs 10x more (compared with let's say previous year), everybody's standards of living is exactly unchanged, while inflation is 900%.
Second, women's participation in work force increased (data the article quotes is per worker-hour not per person).
Third, hours worked per person increased (and quoted figure is per worker-hour not per person)
Fourth, share of wage in compensation decreased drastically. Larger part of GDP goes into non-wage compensation (health insurance, retirement funds etc.), smaller part goes into wage. (and article quotes wages/hour not total compensation/hour).
So far so good. Except that's only stagnation, not any drastic collapse.
Fifth, the article lies outright and uses conspiracy theory inflation figures from shadowstats. You need to use the blue line on their graph (which shows stagnation is hourly earnings - that much is true), not conspiracy theory green line.
If deleting cookies is all that's required to break their paywall, it will take minutes to repurpose Financial Times paywall breaker greasemonkey script to work with NYTimes.
Thank you for repeating the party line, but it doesn't address the issue at all.
The most similar language in most similar situation - that is Ruby - took exactly the opposite road and was extremely successful at it.
Most syntax changes have minor impact on runtime - they increase expressiveness, but from interpreter's perspective just translate down to similar basic operations (look at decorators in particular). If alternative Python implementations couldn't handle even that much in 2 years, they'd be doomed anyway. I'm pretty sure they could do it just fine.
Python is extremely unlikely to introduce any difficult to implement features like callcc. It's just not that kind of language.
Your argument doesn't work, as they're subsidized by taxpayers in many ways (it was true long before the bailouts). They can be as inefficient as they want without making their companies' shares collapse.
max and min can be trivially implemented without branching