pheelicks

joined 9 months ago
[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Rules have a purpose to serve. They can be changed and allow certain tags.

Or let's say we leave the title and make it a [US] flair or marker or however that could be named. Not sure if lemmy already has that functionality.

Just saying there are possible solutions to this.

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Yeah, I have only facts, non of those opinions.

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 29 points 2 months ago

Yeah, if we could stop ridiculing sience by parroting (and probably misrepresenting) stuff like this, that would be great...

When I see those headlines I don't wonder anymore why some people dont take science as a whole seriously.

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago

I don't think anything comes as close to showcasing the extend of this pronunciation ridiculousness as the poem "The Chaos" by Gerard Nolst Trenité which is said to contain about 800 examples.

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 months ago

That pizza wheel arrow. :D

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 months ago

You gotta smell like goat (not the goat). Nasty suckers dont like that.

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago

Thank you! Im really irritated by the amount and ratio of upvotes this post has.

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 months ago

Moon Moon ... oh no wait, wrong thread.

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Did Nintendo sue them by any chance?

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It was originally named Arch de Omphe omphe omphe for the noise of the soldiers marching through it, but they got tired omphe it, I mean of it and renamed it to Triomphe. Not to be confused with victory.

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Sadly I can only upvote once to show appreciation for your well put together wall of text. Nice word masonry :)

[–] pheelicks@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Also it's not that they can't be seen, it's just that the effort required to spot them is greater and the likelihood to miss something is higher.

Greater compared to human code? Not sure about that, but I'm not disagreeing either. Greater compared to verified able programmers, sure, but in general?...

I also really really dislike the non-declarative nature of generated code, which fundamentally rules it out as a reliable end to end system tool unless we can get those fully comprehensive tests up to scratch, for me at least.

I don't think I'm getting your point here. Do you mean by that, the code basically lacks focus on an end goal? Or are you talking about the fuzzyness and randomization of the output?

view more: next ›