Exactly this, and occasionally you'd have multiple words come up for the same number combo, but in a consistent manner where the user could learn how many times you needed to hit the 'next' button to get the word you wanted.
I don't think using dependencies or frameworks is any different than using a word processor for writing. They're tools that get you to the real work of writing original code.
The US House of Representatives passed a measure on Tuesday which "clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism"[1]; so at least 311 congress members are saying it.
I think mislabeling something as a duplication is where most of these issues stem from.
Humans love to pattern match, we find patterns in things that often have no real pattern. It is not uncommon in my experience to see patterns in code, label the code as not DRY, and attempt to DRY it up. If the "duplication" detected was, in fact, not a duplication but rather code that just happens to be similar, the abstraction will often go awry.
My rule-of-thumb is to prioritize maintenance over authorship. Am I writing this code in a way that makes it easier for future me or another programmer to change it, or am I optimizing for a sleek diff in my code review? I think our code can look like breadboards instead of a bespoke printed circuit board, we have compilers for that.
Because producing an image of Muhammad is an explicit prohibition in Islam. Providing services to same-sex couples is not a prohibition in Christianity.
> This would also protect a Muslim artist from being forced to produce a drawing of Muhammad if requested by a client.
I think there is a difference here. It is not a prohibition in Christianity to create a website for a same sex couple, whereas producing an image of Muhammad is a prohibition in Islam.
I'd also argue that a wedding website for same-sex couples is not something that "contradicts biblical truth"; there is plenty of homosexuality in the bible.
I'd argue interval training is more valuable than absolute pitch in improvisation. It's rare you find yourself in a scenario where key is unknown and unknowable, especially playing with other musicians. Being able to hear and distinguish a minor 3rd from major 3rd is much more valuable.
Nah you're right, intervals ear training will always give you more bang for your buck than absolute pitch, and even though absolute pitch is trainable, I don't know any serious musicians who have put effort into it. This is why I think folks think absolute pitch is innate (it isn't): some folks just have a knack for it, and those who don't quickly learn that the effort to build the skill isn't worth the payoff.
Yea, absolute pitch is not very valuable for musicians. Interval training is much more common, where you train on the differences between notes (maj 3rd, minor 6th etc.). Good interval skills make improvisation and composition much easier. If you know the key you're in having absolute pitch doesn't really add anything, and if you're lacking in understanding intervals it won't make up for it.
There are tools you can use that will play a note like C and then another note, and you listen and guess what the 2nd note is. It just takes a bit of consistent trial and error learning, after a bit you get the hang of it and kind of create a mapping of what notes sound like in your head. I use a app called Tenuto for it, but I am sure there are others out there.
Sure, there can be cultural hurdles there, but those exist in the office as well.
"Jane has headphones on, she's heads down and will be upset if I bother her now"
"I want to ask Steve for help, but he rolls his eyes any time I approach him"
"Sam said they'd give me a hand this afternoon, but I can't seem to find them anywhere in the building"
> It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it.
This is the crux of liberal (classical, libertarian, and contemporary) ideology as a whole. The idea that if only people were enlightened we could have nice things. All in all, it is kind of useless, or utopian. You can't enlighten people, and merely giving them education doesn't do the trick on its own.
Liberalism (classical, libertarian, and contemporary) ignores material conditions as a base for which all things are formed, leaving it ill-equipped to handle any real issues. We can hem and haw all day about how "if only the plebs were enlightened" but nothing will change until we make real efforts to change people's material existence. It's easy to turn to fascism and extremism if you have literally nothing going for you in life.
I'm not excusing individuals actions, but don't try to solve a systemic problem with individualism if you want anything to actually change.