Edit: Oops replying to wrong person sorry.
davidagain
Yeah, yeah, definitely. And my friend thanks you too.
Crazy. Your debating opponents don't have to follow your weird rules you set in advance for how they are allowed to contradict you on the Internet, and it's an obvious fallacy to infer truth or falsehood based on whether someone obeys you or not.
There's a block button. You are free to use it, but the claim I was addressing was your clearly false claim to understand game theory.
Anyone who claims that game theory somehow meant that Shill Stein could have been president is talking out of the wrong orifice.
No lawyers. School management. Done.
It's NOT that Trump is bad, it's that he's a RAPIST and you're stupidly gullable if you think he isn't changing the rules on RAPE to make it easier for rich men like him to get away with RAPE, and it's also that getting lawyers involved in K12 exclusions makes everything worse and particularly harrowing for girls who have been RAPED and it's SPECIFICALLY designed to SILENCE THEM.
Go read even a little bit of game theory, like an introductory video on YouTube even, before you start claiming it supports your illogical nonsense take. Introductory test: how many players?
You need to stop believing you know anything about game theory because the Dunning-Kruger klaxon is going off and you can't seem to hear it.
So much protection.
"Trump is bad" is your repeated and deliberate mischaracterisation of my point that you are being really really really really really gullible if you think that a set of rule changes proposed by a rapist (who tries to sue his victims into silence) are balanced and a good plan rather than just a way to let rich people's lawyers let more rapists off the hook.
If she’s a slutty slut slut
There's no need for that kind of language under any circumstances.
You reminded me of a guy who’s always banging on about how Elm combs the spaghetti in your source code for you and the meatballs and sauce are only mixed in at compile time. He says object oriented programming is like threading the pasta through the meatballs which is OK before anything’s cooked but after that it gets too soft and entangled and the spaghetti won’t thread through so you start again rather than refactor. It was a compelling image and got me curious.
I used it for the second rewrite of a side project WebApp a couple of years ago, and I it felt like I had to do everything from scratch by hand all the time at first, but I have to admit that maintenance has been an absolute dream compared with the old codebase. New features, changed functionality, it’s always good and you don’t need to reunderstand everything because it’s all so separated and I told him he was right. It writes the css for you and I kid you not, I did not miss that flakey nonsense one bit.
Our boss is shit scared of anything even a little bit different, though, so he noped out hard when he saw the syntax and got all shouty about all the whitespace and arrows on the big branching statements before launching into a sermon about how you can’t have a corporate look and feel unless you use css. I lost quite a lot of respect for him that day.
Our code at work is so like the bottom picture. You have absolutely no idea whether you just filled someone's underpass when you build another bridge over the top and sometimes you just have to kill the whole branch you've been working on because adding a f*ing overhead sign collapsed seven other things and no matter what you try, you can't undo whatever it was that collapsed. I swear, one day we're going to find that someone accidentally nuked twelve routes six months ago and there's nothing anyone can do about it any more.