That was the whole point in theory, yes. But in reality, almost all new gTLD registrations are being made as brand protection, and redirecting to the company's existing .com domain. Only a very small minority of websites are trying to build a brand on a new gTLD domain name.
> Restricted gTLDs should have only been for trademarked company names, like .google or .microsoft
Unfortunately however, there are a lot of grey areas... To name a few:
* Amazon have been in a long dispute with the Brazilian government, over the right to operate a .amazon TLD - as the Brazilians claim it should instead be related to the rainforest.
* On the other hand, Amazon have secured TLDs such as .prime, which could also be disputed. Apple have won .apple, Sky have won .sky, ... the list goes on.
* Sometimes, the conflicts can even be with foreign languages. For example, Ferrero are now the registry operator for .kinder - but as this is the German word for "children", it's been the cause for similar debate.
Also, with regards to your concern that there is a lack of variety in available unrestricted TLDs - I disagree; if anything, there are far too many (there's hundreds!!).
Shell/batch scripting can often be useful in the devops world, where you have no guarantee that any additional tools (python, ruby, perl, powershell, whatever) wil be available.
Shell scripts are guaranteed to be runnable on all machines.
Unfortunately the shell "language" sucks, but still...
> If the POSIX standard is going to require backreferences, then it should also require a non-backtracking implementation for regular expressions without backreferences
At least in some regexp engines, this is possible. There is a concept of possessive (as opposed to reluctant, or as it's often called, "non-greedy") quantifiers. Given the string "abb", consider the following regexes:
/[ab]+b/ -- matches "abb"
/[ab]+?b/ -- matches "ab"
/[ab]++b/ -- DOES NOT MATCH!! (Because there is no back-tracking.)
Funny how the conclusion is basically "Don't use `var`, use `let` instead" - even though almost all documentation/examples exclusively use the `var` keyword!
> Designers suck at code. Coders suck at design. Keep that shit separate.
I currently work in a small-ish company, where I am the ONLY person designing/developing multiple systems. (I do get some input now and then, but it's mostly all down to me.)
I like this idea in principle, but you don't always have the resources to achieve this!
Yes, you can. Ordering has been guaranteed since ruby v1.9, very much intentionally.
The implementation of a ruby hash is now as a doubly linked list [0]. This has inevitably caused a slight performance hit, but the benefits far outweigh the cost IMO.
* No comparison with other time periods, and their respective tuition fees.
* No comparison with other countries, and their respective policies.
* No data on where these students graduate from, or in which subjects, or with which grades, or what their average salary is X years later, or whether they'll actually be able to pay back the loan.
It's missing a huge amount of important information; you really can't justify the conclusion "tuition fees are good" from this alone.
> this would never pass a code review, the expectation of "foo?" is that it returns true/false.
95% of the time, yes. However, the "official" rule is simply that such methods must return a value that can be EVALUATED as true/false. There are plenty of methods in the ruby core/standard library which end in a "?" but do not return true/false, such as:
> Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords, even if some people use them as passwords.
This doesn't make sense. You cannot "use a username as a password".
Fingerprints, retina scans, DNA samples, etc are biometric passwords. They are unique identifiers to your identification, and cannot be changed for obvious reasons.
It's also worth noting that (at least in the UK) such notice periods are not legally binding.
You can only be forced to give a notice period up to your payroll pay frequency. So for example, if you get paid monthly then you cannot be sued for failing to give > 1 month's notice!
... But of course, most people will still honour their company's "3 month notice" (or whatever) period out of good faith, as it's generally a good idea not to burn bridges.
