In the Netherlands you're either a tourist or 60 year or older if you wear a helmet. But it is also not that fair to compare the Netherlands to other countries. We grew up with bicycles and our infrastructure is much better for cycling.
It's more that the Netherlands is a substantial outlier in terms of how they accommodate cyclists, so applying their attitudes towards helmets without also being as cyclist-friendly (infrastructurally and socially) as they are is asking for trouble.
Obviously infrastructure helps a lot, but there is still the danger inherent in the fact that it's quite far from your head to the ground. I don't wear a helmet though personally, since the bike infrastructure is good in my city in Germany, at least on the routes I take
I don't care if i'am not using every feature in Vim. I gave up on NVIM, because i was completely done with configuring plugins with bad documentation, no good defaults. For every plugin i needed to learn more and more shortcuts. After an update some plugins were broken etc. I just now stick with VSCode with the NVIM plugin.
I always used the cursor function, but did not know about the press again selection mode. I still have a iPhone 10, so i can still enjoy while it lasts.
Yes, this is bad. If it was not clear enough that this created a VScrollBar, then create a function CreateVerticalScrollBar(). Why? Well this does exactly the same as commenting the code, except that this can easily be renamed with your IDE if the code base changes. Comments will always be outdated, functions not.
Great, but that's not the reason why obvious comments are bad. They are bad because it's not maintainable. For you this means that the next time a developer refactors the code, you need to check if the comment is still accurate with the refactored intentions. I repeat, this is not maintainable! I love how the book Clean Code described it: "A comment is a failure to express yourself in code." There are situation they are useful, but those are definitely not obvious comments.
Eg. I like paragraphed comments, because you know what the next 5 lines will do and you can quickly skip to the part you need.
It's not always possible to have a method with only 5 lines. There are use-cases where you want a big method doing a lot of things together, because it's complex.
Eg. For a government project i needed to connect to the internal network for executing certain requests and all that logic was in one HttpProxyClass, shared between the api + service/deamon
If those 5 lines do so much that you can't scan it quickly, why is it not in a function? I don't understand, why so many people here have a hard time of understanding this here on HN. You can't trust that comment, you don't know if its outdated or not.
Update: I noticed you updated your comment.
So my reaction to your addition is that a class can always be abstracted to higher level. It will probably do to much at this point.
I added the example of what i kept together, because that complex class was the junction class of 4 interfaces for server/client + receive/send.
The logic was much simpler to scan/change if you comprehend everything it does. Instead of only partially by abstraction. The use case that one thing was called for one-use case wasn't applicable.
I like clean code and apply it a lot. But it's not applicable for everything. I think you just didn't encounter the more advanced cases yet where it isn't, since they are not that frequent.
The spirit of clean code is to make readable code. Not the reality is that you have to adjust to the situation. They're is code were comments make sense. Comments can give context and intent ( look at code of sqlite for example).
Do you take in to account the infrastructure and offices of new technology? Do you take in to account how many people does the new technology serve compared to existing? Do you take in to account how many services does the new technology provide compared to the existing?
And YouTube streams 1 billion hours of video a day, what's the carbon footprint of that? Is watching despacito or gangnam style really better for the world than a bitcoin transaction? Is it worse? Who is the arbiter if these decisions?
Of course, if you're going to include client power consumption, that's a different story... Then again, a youtube video is an actual desirable product in and of itself, whereas a bitcoin transaction is not; it's just a way to (perhaps in the future) acquire something desirable.
Ideally we'd price carbon conservatively (i.e. higher than necessary), and then this would all be a moot point. However, by the time we get all the relevant countries on board with that, and get democrats and republicans to sufficiently cooperate (even harder), the universe's heat death is likely nigh, so perhaps in the interim it's reasonable to just outright ban exceptionally pointless wasteful activities such as bitcoin mining.
Look just be honest with yourself, you were in a prime position to buy bitcoin early (you are on HN so you likely heard about it before, let's say 2013). And you didn't, so your vested interest is in it failing. The environmental considerations just give you the flag to rally around. Your comment history has plenty of negative mentions of cryptocurrency/BTC but I cannot find anything related to environmental concern that is not cryptocurrency related. I also have never seen a comment where you want to ban something, does that mean that bitcoin is the only " exceptionally pointless wasteful activity" that you know of? If so, even that should tell you something about your true motives, if not where do you protest about these other activities?
I don't protest the obvious. There's little discussion about the harms of global warming in general; this is a generally accepted fact, at least to most people I engage with. The same can not be said about cryptocurrencies and their harms; this is an argument worth having, precisely because people have not yet fully acknowledged the problems. Also: it's remarkable that you've so fully analyzed my personality in 5 minutes.
In any case, to reiterate my counterpoint (which you have not disputed, but given your ad hominem I assume you don't agree with): estimating at least an order of magnitude impact of bitcoin isn't that hard, so your suggestion that it's hopeless to compare somebody streaming gangnam style with a bitcoin transaction is unfounded. One can compare bitcoins environmental impacts with other environmental impacts.
> And you didn't, so your vested interest is in it failing.
Why does he have a "vested interest" in Bitcoin failing? Are you sure you know what "vested" means? :-)
Do you mean to say that he wants Bitcoin to fail because he's bitter?
We will see if Bitcoin is relevant in 5-10 years from now. My guess: it will be a niche thing with a very narrow set of uses.
If anything, you sound a bit like a Bitcoin supporter (maybe an investor?), so you sound more like someone who has a <<vested>> interest in it succeeding.
I know what vested means, there can be a financial element to it but that is not a requirement:
definition:
'a personal reason for involvement in an undertaking or situation'
The personal reason here may well be bitterness, but that was your word not mine.
If, in 2011, we were discussing what bitcoin succeeding looks like, I would have said that if it was worth 5 figures (and I would have meant low 5 figures, so $10,000) it had succeeded. If, alongside the value, my parents knew what it was (not through me) then it would have succeeded.
In truth I would also have expected it to take closer to 20 years to reach that point. So in my mind it has succeeded. It is still around over a decade later, it surpassed the dollar value I would have assigned success even without this latest runup. There are few people in the world, who have internet acccess, who have not heard of it.
So I disagree with you, because on metrics I would have measured it with in 2011 it has met and exceeded them. Therefore it has succeeded already. I have skin in the game, so perhaps I have a vested interest, but only in as much as it would make me more money than it already has. And I dont need more money. If it went to zero tomorrow my life would not change.
