It removes the need for your fellow drivers to feel a tension when it is time to switch lanes, to not have to make a risky maneuver. You get to relax when driving because now you aren’t competing to get to your destination, and you can feel more confident others are not going to accidentally hit you in a desperate attempt to go where they are going.

That impatient driver behind you? They will get around you and play the rat race. Let them. Most drivers don’t do that unless you are much obviously slower than traffic flow. Let people win the game they are playing. You are making it generally safer, and your consistency on the road helps them make decisions easier.

I’ve been doing this for about 10 years. No accidents, no cause of accidents, no angry honkers, none of that nonsense. Try it for a week! Give others space to move. Watch traffic jams ease up a little around you. It’s very neat. My space clears spaces so I can move easier after people get in front of me. I’ve seen others follow my example (or be their own example).

In 2015, we continue to develop incorrect CSV parsing and production when there are ready solutions in the wild for the spec (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4180.txt - 2005), such as Ruby's csv package, Perl's Text::CSV, CL's CL-CSV, and so forth. It's a solved problem. I quite understand this challenge, but this issue is important to me because this same print "%s,%s\n" stuff shows up in the wild from professional developers who have the time on their hands to use the right tool, some of which I have personally worked with. Perhaps, like in this challenge, they are under pressure to get their feature finished, and this is the first thing they think of because, after all, it's just "comma-separated values".

This challenge is especially amusing in that it, were it a real-world situation, involves people's financial welfare, and developers in a rush could very well have screwed it up. Isn't that cause for worry?

Fun specific example at the lock screen after holding down the iPhone's button for a couple seconds: "Read the latest message from my wife to me." Then, still at the lock screen, "Reply to my wife I love you".

Maybe it's just my experience, but I did not care much for Siri until she allowed me greater control over my device. When she first came out, you could not ask her to read the screen; later, the program was able to toggle assisting configuration like VoiceOver by command.

* Something only the user knows (e.g., password, PIN, pattern);

* Something only the user has (e.g., ATM card, smart card, mobile phone); and

* Something only the user is (e.g., biometric characteristic, such as a fingerprint).

Your example was two things that someone knows -- one factor.

Today's punctuation rules may have awkward beginnings, but the rules are standard, familiar, and subconsciously expected. This actually improves the speed at which I can read. The author's style had several places that were difficult for me because I have been mentally trained on one set of road signs and meanings.

Imperative OOP often feels like one is pivoting behavior around the data.

FP feels like the data is flowing from one transformation to the next.

There is the "functional" part of it, too... where functions are highly composable. One creates new functions by combining old functions, and these may carry along with them important context (closures).

2. From what I've learned of Haskell -- and I'm a Haskell noob -- it lets you work with the side effecty real world. You can alter your hardware state. The key is that it specifically flags such side effects and encourages separation between more "pure" code and code that is "tainted" with the side effects.

[1] OOP is an abstraction and compatible with pure FP. You can model your class instances such that they are immutable and get all the benefits of OOP. FP contrasts better with imperative programming.

Don't judge a book by its cover. Follow the money. A witty saying proves nothing.

I thought the notion of willpower being a finite resource was debunked (http://lifehacker.com/5967249/your-willpower-is-only-a-finit...). If you believe your willpower is finite, then it is finite; if you believe it is infinite and powerful, then it is infinite and powerful. This "finite resource" notion is a feel-good easy path out, a way to comfort yourself that it is okay that your will failed you because, after all, you only had so much.

I see this article confuses willpower with motivation. Willpower is what you use when your motivation has waned. Willpower is a tool to help you rekindle the fires of motivation or to press forward regardless because of an oath you made to yourself.

It comes down to what you believe, what mental constructs you have put into place, to inhibit or strengthen your willpower. You have the power to choose, every moment.

You're right. It's manipulation. Building consensus, too, is a form of manipulation. Some of it is irritating, especially if it is delivered in the form you quoted. My hackles rise, too!

From your comment, I am seeing that the real issue is when the manipulation is overt, when someone expresses something in a way that is clearly intended to push you in a direction rather than actually respect and accept your buy-in.

But that leads me to seeing that this really just another form of pathos. In a conversation, the average person wants to feel respected, that their opinion has merit. This is part of rhetoric. In fact, where action and tone are lacking, some people may genuinely need the additional words of appreciation that set you and me off. My point is that logos is not the only valid appeal, and I would propose that nobody is absolutely rational, meaning that degrees of the other forms of persuasion are acceptable and useful means.

To address your first point, all persuasion is manipulation. Somewhere I read that all speech is a form of persuasion, though the reasoning behind this assertion may be a bit contrived. Instead of elaborating on that point, I want to suggest instead that even if it is not "all", even if it is just "most", we could see instead that manipulation is not an evil in itself. Clearly there is nothing wrong with asking somebody where they would like to eat as your means to coerce them into joining you for dinner. Obtaining consensus or bringing someone to agree with you is not, itself, an evil or even irritating.

Armed with all the appeals of rhetoric and following these steps with respect to the audience's needs, I think the four steps listed at the top of the thread are acceptable means in polite society of persuasion, or, if you prefer, manipulation.

Addendum: I just tried the four steps. Was this post a successful example? Did I overdo it?

On the other hand, I did find that Skype over 3G was conclusively better-sounding than the regular AT&T voice stuff...when it did not lag out with weird chirps.

Is there a reasonable way to have trusted individuals intermittently audit the service?

If the brain receives noise, it fills in the blanks (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/06/000601164617.ht...). In sensory deprivation, the brain also fills in the blanks (would cite but ended up finding a ton of supporting material in a web search, including an interesting study about the effects of anxiety on amount of hallucinations).

I would propose that deliberate practice (http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/04/deliberate-practice-h...) is more key than age (I could be goofing off for 40 years) and experience (I could be poorly repeating the same inefficient niche for a long time).

Always "git pull --rebase"; it is fast, easy, and meaningful. You can change the default configuration and probably should; same goes with other tools like emacs and vim.

Worried about date rearrangements? For those few situations where it is important, git log --since="$DATE_OF_LAST_TUESDAY".