> Contrariwise, it's possible (but harder) to have no sense of taste and merely copy what most would regard as "good taste" and be perceived as having "good taste."
Exactly. This idea comes up time and time again, but the cost/benefit just doesn't make sense at all. You're adding an unbelievable amount of complex tooling just to avoid running a simple formatter.
The goal of having every developer viewing the code with their own preferences just isn't that important. On every team I've been on, we just use a standard style guide, enforced by formatter, and while not everyone agrees with every rule, it just doesn't matter. You get used to it.
Arguing and obsessing about code formatting is simply useless bikeshedding.
I disagree with almost every choice made by the Go language designers, but `Gofmt's style is no one's favorite, yet gofmt is everyone's favorite` is solid. Pick a not-unreasonable standard, enforce it, and move on to more important things.
Yeah it would probably be a waste of time. It's a nice idea to dream about though. It would be nice to be able to look at some C# code and not have opening curly brackets on a separate line.
>> The goal of having every developer viewing the code with their own preferences just isn't that important.
Bah! So, what is more important? Is the average convenience of the herd more important? Average of the convenience, even if there was ever such a thing.
What if you really liked reading books in paper format, but were forced to read them on displays for... reasons?
I think the SC software mindset here is: I am in that group, got mine. The analysis ends there. And the higher your perceived ability the less worried you are about the future.
I did consider this but the effort of doing a full dictionary pass is a lot to ask for marginal improvement and I don't know anyone quite as obsessed as me who would do it. Paying someone would be possible, but finding the right combination of "willing to do it for pay" and "I trust their judgement" is hard.
In practice, the way I approach this is by reacting to complaints from players who either don't know words I included or were disappointed I didn't include a particular word.
How about doing a pass where you categorize as in for sure, out for sure, and idunno. There may not be too many of those idunno‘s, so may be possible to enlist help.
That said your approach seems to have worked well. Kudos!
Yup, that's a really good point. I kind of wish I had marked ambiguous words on a first pass, and then taken a bit of a different approach for a second pass of just the difficult ones.
I don't, unfortunately. I'm trying to avoid having a dedicated backend for this so there are Google Analytics but they don't allow that granular of a metric.
That definitely could be something interesting, but I'd probably need a decently larger player base to get enough data, considering how many words are possible.
Those are rookie numbers. I have often set my alarm for 40+ minutes before I "need" to be awake because I know that I will snooze the alarm several times before being conscious enough to force myself out of bed.
At top it should read “L = …” (as it does in the compact form printed on the coffee mug image).
Here, L represents Lagrangian density. The integral of L over spacetime (between some initial and some final time) is the action S, which therefore is a functional of the particular configuration the various fields take. The classical configuration of the fields (solutions of equations of motion) is the one that minimizes S between initial and final times. Quantum mechanically, the amplitude to find final field configuration given initial field configuration is obtained by integrating e^iS over all field configurations. Modulo a few details* the workings of the universe ensue.
Another example is open world games. They have to keep world coordinates centered on the player because for large worlds, the floating point inaccuracy in the far reaches of the world starts to really matter. An example of a game that does this is Outer Wilds.
caveat: this is not my direct experience so i might be wrong -- but someone who was doing an different masters project at the same time as mine was doing a mini on-rails video game and mentioned this.
apparently it's also because of the "what is up?" question.
e.g. in outer wilds ... how do you determine which way is "up" when "up" for the player can be any direction.
Not only possible, but exactly what AI does. :)