Most charting frameworks tend to have default configurations which demonstrate more features than necessary as an advertisement of their competence for potential users, who are likely to copy default configuration and also take demo charts as cues on what charts should look like. It isn't the only dynamic which causes charts to tend to have superfluous or untuned features but it has some effect.
Ive been pretty impressed by the latest AWS services. There are a ton of them though. I wouldnt expect anything different from a system designed to accomodate arbitry infrastructure. I'm considering deploying to Lightsail next, which looks like refreshing simplicity for smaller projects.
Wow. Thanks for the insight into this psychology. It's all greed with you then isn't it? You'll lie to people and de-educate them for good money. Perhaps you would consider being a slum lord or a pimp or a drug dealer for the right price?
Don't think we're really on a moral high ground here when a huge chunk of this forum likely makes a living from utilising in depth personal info to drive advertisements, targeted advertising from the major tech companies make it all possible.
such smart. impressed. "p2" "p3". knows unique terminology. literal genius. so smart. A dozen programming languages just for fun? You definitely know what you're talking about and have very worthwhile contributions. People should listen to you.
I like what you said about self-obsessed project. It's clear that you have a very well reasoned position, not just opinion. What you say makes irrefutable sense.
A .txt file is meant for human readable sentences, yet this file is meant to be consumed by pip. You can only "customize" it working within the confines of pip freeze. If you were new to programming, would you suspect that requirements.txt was somehow linked to Python? Probably not.
Why can't ruby or JavaScript or any language make use of requirements.txt? They could, and make the same claim you just made, which would break pip install -r.
Text simply means text format, not that "humans should read this". The human editability of text is a nice-to-have, but not a requirment of the format structure.
For a comparision, NPM has a packages.json which is hand-editable, and lots of people do customize it by hand to get their NPM scripts running, but:
a) If you're new to programming, you might be confused by which language it belongs to just like a requirements.txt
b) if you peek into it, you may not think it's generated, consumed, or editted by machines because JSON format is so readable
I never said humans should read it, just that it's human readable. And of course requirements.txt is technically human readable, but the problem is that it breaks scripts if you do anything other than pip freeze to it. This is obvious in the npm world (you better put JSON in a .json file!).
My point is that the .txt extension doesn't give any hints to its use or that it's breakable, and that the name "requirements" doesn't describe the intended domain of the file (Python only). Even naming it "python_requirements.txt" would be an improvement.
When it can, detecting thoughtcrime might not be far off ...
AI could soon filter some of this stuff or screen it to alert humans, which will obviously be a good thing.
But I think it's up to us to adapt to new technological environments. Parents shouldn't be allowing their young children to post videos of themselves on youtube for a variety of reasons. And kids should be warned not to do things strangers on the internet ask them to do, just as we warn them about strangers on the street.
Funny you would say that. I'm in West Africa right now, moving through some of the poorest countries in the world.
I would say, on the whole, people here are happier than people in Australia / Canada / USA (where I have lived).
Obviously there are some severely sick or malnourished people where that is not true, but it's actually extremely uncommon. There is a lot of food and water here.
I'm not knocking stoicism, it's a great outlook. But it asks us to have some perspective. A weakness of Stoicism is that it can allow people to attribute too much of thier emotional and intellectual success to thier own powers, when lack of physical comfort can be a limiting factor on having any intellectual life at all.
You should remember that stoicism was concieved amongst the elite of their time and place, who worried least.
Modern population density also makes comparisons of the contemporary 3rd world with ancient Greece rather far-fetched.
> You should remember that stoicism was concieved amongst the elite of their time and place, who worried least.
If you read Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, three of the main authors of the Stoa, that is probably the last conclusion you would come to. Seneca was accused of conspiracy and forced to suicide by Nero. Epictetus was a slave who was "so poor that he didn't have to lock up his house". Marcus Aurelius spent the last years of his life (when he wrote the "Meditations") on the battlefield. They were meant as self-reassurance in a very troubled time.
>Modern population density also makes comparisons of the contemporary 3rd world with ancient Greece rather far-fetched.
Rome, btw. Which was already relatively densely populated.
Wikipedia: When Demetrius of Phalerum conducted a population census [of Athens] in 317 BC the population was 21,000 free citizens, plus 10,000 resident aliens and 400,000 slaves.
Many greek slaves had decent enough lives, especially if they were educated, they might be running their masters business and have quite a lot to lose in a rebellion and not much of an upside. Greek slavery was not at all like the antebellum South.
