The reported average of 20 days is likely skewed by a small number of long leaves and I suspect* is nowhere near typical for the median worker (it's nearly taking a day off every two weeks).
Longer leave already requires a doctor's approval so the proposal to require that for all leave is unlikely to change much other than drown doctors in more busy work.
*I can't find much for the 'median' amount of leave taken per year.
Indeed, at 3 pieces per second (I don't have a good sense of how fast good tetris players play, but I've seen some videos and it looks like they can average more than one a second), it's 10 hours of constant play.
Playing at such a speed for 10 hours is kind of insane. Playing it without error is not human.
> Also: in Europe everybody normally takes paracetamol and not FANS as a first reach to minimize adverse effects. So this article looks like very US centric.
This is not my experience. After moving to Germany from the UK, I feel like people take and expect Ibuprofen far more often than Paracetamol. It seems like the first port of call for colds and general headaches, with Paracetamol being treated with some suspicion, despite it being far more effective in my experience for certain things (I've taken a lot of Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs in my time so am quite familiar with how they affect me).
As a fencer watching these, I've never felt like I've not known where the blades are. Just from the hand positions and knowing what people do. So I find the constant lights a little distracting.
But I can imagine non-fencers don't have that sense.
What I would like is clarity of when blades meet; this is crucial when determing who scores in foil and sabre and it's often muddied or lost during recordings.
I've never grokkeed suffix trees, but isn't possible for them to be O(n) in space (n total length of all strings)? Is there just an unacceptable constant factor overhead? I can imagine the pointer overhead being painful.
As an Englishman that has been transplanted to another country, I find myself making them more in Germany than I ever made them back home.
But that's because my wife requests it.
It would never occur to me to up the egg ratio so high to reach into that void though. My wife manages to mess up the proportions every time though, so maybe we'll unwittingly explore that region one day.
But my point is, is that I believe the important thing to preserve in history is whatever your unit of review is. If you could stack PRs and each were subject to the individual review, I would not combine and squash those (just the individual commits within each PR).
I want every commit to represent a buildable state in which I have confidence automated tests pass. Bisecting is made unnecessarily difficult otherwise, and it's nice to be able checkout any commit and just build something for testing.
This constraint is usually enforced by code review.
Please consider a variable `List{int}[3] x`, this is an array of 3 List{int} containing List{int}. If we do `x[1]` we will get an element of List{int}, from the middle element in the array. If we then further index this with [5], like `x[1][5]` we will get the 5th element of that list.
I get that motivation. In C++ it's an odd case that where `std::vector<int> x[4]` is "reversed" in a sense compared to `int x[4][100]`. And this quirk is shared with other languages (Java, C#).
But in my experience, mixing generic datatypes like this with arrays is quite rare, and multi-dimensional array like structures with these types is often specified via nesting (`std::vector<std::vector>>`) which avoids confusion.
The argument re. pointers is more convincing though.
Your real commit history is irrelevant. I don't care too much about how you came to a particular state.
The overall project history though, the clarity of changes made, and that bisecting reliably works are important to me.
Or another way; the important unit is whatever your unit of code review is. If you're not reviewing and checking individual commits, they're just noise in the history; the commit messages are not clear and I cannot reliably bisect on them (since nobody is checking that things build).
Longer leave already requires a doctor's approval so the proposal to require that for all leave is unlikely to change much other than drown doctors in more busy work.
*I can't find much for the 'median' amount of leave taken per year.