- Feb 2021
Unlike naming children, coding involves naming things on a daily basis. When you write code, naming things isn’t just hard, it’s a relentless demand for creativity. Fortunately, programmers are creative people.
- what programmers are like
- frequently encountered (common) problem
- good point
- software development
- the activity of _
- creative people
- naming things is hard
- good analogy
- requires/demands creativity
- Nov 2020
Man, for some reason, I really like this answer. I recognize it's a bit more complicated, but it seems so useful. And given that I'm no bash expert, it leads me to believe that my logic is faulty, and there's something wrong with this methodology, otherwise, I feel others would have given it more praise. So, what's the problem with this function? Is there anything I should be looking out for here?
I think the main thing wrong with it is the eval (which I think can be changed to
$("$@")and it's pretty verbose.
Also, there are more concise ways to do it that would probably appeal more to most bash experts...
like set -x
and it does unnecessary things: why save output to a variable? Just let output go to where it would normally go...
So yeah, I can see why this solution isn't very popular. And I'm rather surprised by all the praise comments it's gotten.
- why isn't this more popular?
- why aren't people talking about/asking this?
- hasn't caught on / gained popularity
- good question
- why isn't this more common/the norm?
- good point
- Mar 2020
Historically, the communitarian bases of the American legal system supported the subordination of individual rights when necessary for the preservation of common good. Quarantine measures were subjected to a deferential review supporting the states' right to substantially limit individual rights for the community's benefit.
The treatment of quarantine reflects the latter. Courts and academics rarely expressed doubt about the validity of quarantine regulations, since the courts presumed that actions taken under the police power were constitutional.10,11 Challenges to the Fourteenth Amendment, usually successful when governmental intervention interfered with individual liberties, were not well received by the courts when communicable disease regulations, including quarantine, were involved.
quarantine was already a well established form of public health regulation, and was considered proper exercise of the police power of the states; the Supreme Court, in its affirmation of this power, noted that the state had the power to quarantine “to provide for the health of the citizens.”10,11 The uncontrollable nature of epidemic diseases moved the Supreme Court to uphold such extreme measures on the basis of the defense of the common good.8
- Aug 2017
- Mar 2016
Hochberg, M. E., Chase, J. M., Gotelli, N. J., Hastings, A., & Naeem, S. (2009). The tragedy of the reviewercommons.Ecology Letters, 12, 2–4
- Feb 2014
Property Status Conclusions and Implications Intellectual property is neither ‘scarce,’ nor does the taking of it leave “enough, and as good, left in comm on for others” (the Lockean proviso) (Long, 1995, n. pag.; Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).
Intellectual property is neither scarce nor leaves enough for the common good. It is not property in the Lockean sense.