I'll be upfront in admitting that I loathe C++ just as much the next guy (I can't seem to get away from Lispy languages), but isn't this being a teeny bit ridiculous?
EDIT: This comment literally says "usually if you think you know something, you don't." So I guess I shouldn't apply for a job using language FooBar, since by this guy's rule I probably don't actually know FooBar.
Yes, exactly! I didn't become the half-decent programmer that I am until I finally embraced the fact that my code sucks and adopted highly defensive coding practices as a result.
Well, the only (literal) meaning of "know" that doesn't fit what everyone else on this thread was thinking it meant is:
(3) archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
So we should rephrase
"Odds are, one should never trust a programmer who thinks they know [X]. Odds are they only think they know really know [X], but they haven't gone too much farther than figuring out how to use the library."
With something along the lines of
"Odds are, one should never trust a programmer who thinks they have had sex with [X]. Odds are they only think they have had sex with really have had sex with [X], but they haven't gone too much farther than figuring out how to use the library."
Note the comment makes no absolute statement. Note the reference to "odds." This is almost the same idea as: "Remember, most people think they're an above average driver. Also remember, half the people are below average drivers."
It's also along the same lines as, "There's always someone better than you."
Also note the use of "really." "Know" is twice accompanied by the adjective "really." I would've thought this would make it clear that I wasn't talking about "a little knowledge." The odds are that a programmer does have "a little knowledge" about [X].
Given that you, despite claiming to be puzzled didn't try to take "odds" or the frequent use of the adjective into account, I wonder if you are apt to catch details like that. Maybe this would make a good interview question for coders?
Also remember, half the people are below average drivers.
Depends on what you mean by "average". If you mean "median" you are correct, but if you mean "mean" (like most people do) this is not necessarily true for most interesting situations.
Then the "non-technical" user who complains about this can go fuck themselves, since the Windows machine they're supposed to be switching from does the same thing.
At first it sounds like I'm trolling, but please think this issue through. What crowd is Ubuntu trying to pander to? Are there really people out there "technical" enough to bother caring about a hard drive's size, but not technical enough to figure out that 1000 != 1024?
If you want something that the end user will really care about, ship Ubuntu with a default theme that doesn't look horrible, or include useful codecs and plugins in the default install. "Oh, but those are easy to obtain", you say? So then is it really that much more difficult to spend 5 seconds explaining that it's 1024, not 1000? Not that I care enough to create some stupid "UBUNTU + FLASH LOL" distro, since I use Arch or one of the BSDs, but it just seems stupid that they'd make a silly, superficial change like this and expect a pat on the back.
> What crowd is Ubuntu trying to pander to? Are there really people out there "technical" enough to bother caring about a hard drive's size, but not technical enough to figure out that 1000 != 1024?
They don't care about the hard drive size per se, they just care that all the numbers the computer reports are as impressive as the ones the salesman told them.
> So then is it really that much more difficult to spend 5 seconds explaining that it's 1024, not 1000?
It is when you're being yelled at in the product returns line. It sounds like an excuse and an ass-pull, and it's not something that would calm down a belligerent customer.
Remember that there are two types of people who have Ubuntu—those that got it themselves, and those who had it dropped upon them by a more technical user. For the second group, "superficial" change is the only kind of change they care about, vis. http://www.makemylogobiggercream.com/
Also, as a side-note, the cost of being widely-used by governments and public institutions, and being open-source, is that you have to obey the law, so the option to "include useful codecs and plugins in the default install" just isn't available. (You can't purchase a license for a codec when you literally don't know how many users you have.)
I've always felt that if you're a programmer and you're hiding from the so-called "mathy" parts of you're doing, whether it's universal things like algorithms or specific things like machine learning, instead of being given a cute title like "developer" and forming a false dichotomy between that and the idea of a "computer scientist", you should be given the title of "sloppy".
Admittedly, you might be able to get by mindlessly plugging in values into someone else's function without ever having to bat an eye. But when something breaks, you're going to be absolutely screwed.
"Programming is one of the most difficult branches of applied mathematics; the poorer mathematicians had better remain pure mathematicians."
Maybe there's a way to do it that I missed, but it would be helpful if when I select a color from the palette, I could see the Hex/RGB value for the color and set it from that as well. That way when I want to set two elements to the same color, I wouldn't have to wait and change it in the config file (which defeats the whole purpose of this application).
I agree 100%. I think it usually comes down to confidence: if you're not confident in your ability, it's all too tempting to try to learn "just a little bit more" and never take the plunge enough to practice. On the other end of the spectrum are the audacious "rock star developer" wannabes.
Skillful programming requires a weird mix of both attitudes.
Unfortunately, there is a reason why getting a merchant account is a pain in the ass. The bank doesn't want the risk (for good reason).
The thing about Square isn't the device... it's the service. So when things go poorly, they will be the ones that have to foot the bill. If they open things up too widely, then they will be exposing themselves to huge risk.
From the video on the square site it seemed like person to person transactions are encouraged. I'm guessing turn around time for money transfers are going to be longer and maybe a secondary online approval process for some transactions for non-merchant accounts.
