There are a few events in my life that merit the story being told to people; friends at the pub, during conversations with colleagues at lunch, etc, because they're amusing or unbelievable or whatever.

After a while, you may not remember the event so much, but you do remember the story.

My point was that ME3 was doomed because ME2 utterly failed at bridging the gap between the strong start of an epic that was ME1 and what should have been the conclusion in ME3.

In fact 'fail' may be generous. I don't think it even 'tried'.

I'd place it around the start of ME2.

Longer leave already requires a doctor's approval so the proposal to require that for all leave is unlikely to change much other than drown doctors in more busy work.

*I can't find much for the 'median' amount of leave taken per year.

Playing at such a speed for 10 hours is kind of insane. Playing it without error is not human.

This is not my experience. After moving to Germany from the UK, I feel like people take and expect Ibuprofen far more often than Paracetamol. It seems like the first port of call for colds and general headaches, with Paracetamol being treated with some suspicion, despite it being far more effective in my experience for certain things (I've taken a lot of Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs in my time so am quite familiar with how they affect me).

But I can imagine non-fencers don't have that sense.

What I would like is clarity of when blades meet; this is crucial when determing who scores in foil and sabre and it's often muddied or lost during recordings.

I think my favourite part is the fact that '1' isn't even one of the supported values.

But that's because my wife requests it.

It would never occur to me to up the egg ratio so high to reach into that void though. My wife manages to mess up the proportions every time though, so maybe we'll unwittingly explore that region one day.

But my point is, is that I believe the important thing to preserve in history is whatever your unit of review is. If you could stack PRs and each were subject to the individual review, I would not combine and squash those (just the individual commits within each PR).

This constraint is usually enforced by code review.

On Github, the unit of code review is the PR.

Therefore, I prefer squashing.

Please consider a variable `List{int}[3] x`, this is an array of 3 List{int} containing List{int}. If we do `x[1]` we will get an element of List{int}, from the middle element in the array. If we then further index this with [5], like `x[1][5]` we will get the 5th element of that list.

I get that motivation. In C++ it's an odd case that where `std::vector x[4]` is "reversed" in a sense compared to `int x[4][100]`. And this quirk is shared with other languages (Java, C#).

But in my experience, mixing generic datatypes like this with arrays is quite rare, and multi-dimensional array like structures with these types is often specified via nesting (`std::vector>`) which avoids confusion.

The argument re. pointers is more convincing though.

It would require more thinking on my end to change that to either 'this is an acceptable choice' or 'this is a terrible idea'.

But the array indices being reversed on declaration? I cannot think of an upside to that at all.

https://c3-lang.org/language-common/arrays/#fixed-size-multi...

Multi dimensional arrays are not declared in the same way they are accessed; the order of dimensions is reversed.

Accessing the multi-dimensional fixed array has inverted array index order to when the array was declared.

That is, the last element of 'int[3][10] x = {...}' is accessed with 'x[9][2]'.

This seems bizarre to me. What am I missing? Are there other languages that do this?

End of life care* is highly variable in duration and costs and many people do not adequately prepare for expensive endings.

* this is true of more than just care post retirement

Decline like this is difficult to reverse, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

The overall project history though, the clarity of changes made, and that bisecting reliably works are important to me.

Or another way; the important unit is whatever your unit of code review is. If you're not reviewing and checking individual commits, they're just noise in the history; the commit messages are not clear and I cannot reliably bisect on them (since nobody is checking that things build).