We'll see about that, long term. The billions and trillions being wasted right now to get the foot in the door need to be earned back somehow at some point...

"Nice company you have there, totally reliant on our AI tech. Oh by the way we gotta increase the rent again."

And if you think about how summation would look in Lisp or APL (which some smart people use to this day), I am not even convinced your argument for the "sum function" notation being superior holds in general.

So, after literally decades of investing into advertising campaigns, lobbying to politicians to pass harsher and harsher laws against software "thieves and robbers", now that big tech are doing it, suddenly we are supposed to consider it with more nuance?

Ahhh... no thank you sir. I really enjoy them drinking their own kool-aid.

Sorry, but I don't think there is any way this can be classified as "not actually a bug"

Since yesterday, me and several colleagues noticed that the pull request lists on the website are incomplete, across many repositories. For example, on https://github.com/gap-system/gap/pulls it says "Pull requests 78" in the "tab list", but the PR list view reports "35 open" (the number 78 is correct, and confirmed by e.g. `gh pr list`)

And that despite <https://www.githubstatus.com> reporting "all systems operational".

Your rant would be akin to this if the sides are reversed: "It's surprising how many different ways there are to describe the same thing. Eg: see all the notations for dictionaries (hash tables? associative arrays? maps?) or lists (vectors? arrays?).

You don't have "the manual" of programming languages. "

I take it that means you also haven't taken (m)any number theory classes then ;-). Because people wildly care about that.

This is in a sense the background of another well-known conjecture, the Riemann conjecture...

The standard example is that we have a well-defined and useful notion of division in the ring Z/nZ for n any positive integer even in cases were we "divide" by an element that has no multiplicative inverse. Easy example: take n=8 then you can "divide" 4+nZ by 2+nZ just fine (and in fact turn Z/nZ into a Euclidean ring), even though 2+nZ is not a unit, i.e. admits no multiplicative inverse.

Granted, some people love to hate on the Magic Mouse. Perhaps it is bad (I also prefer different mice). I am happy to discuss it. But does it really have to be framed like that? This makes me want to skip over anything that site produces, I just can't take it serious.