HamsterRage

Now go listen to the Rachmaninoff piece inspired by this (it has the same name).

From a practical perspective, I think that viewing SRP as referring to "direct" responsibility is good enough for making programming decisions.

Take the example from the Wikipedia entry. A module that compiles and prints a report. If that was split into 3 modules: one that compiles; one that prints; and one that delegates to the previous two modules to produce the output, then you would have achieved SRP. Yes, the third does two things, but it delegates them and is therefore not directly responsible for them.

At the same time this holds with the spirit of the official definition. Each module is only responsible to one source of change.

At a certain level of detail, your sources of change start becoming other modules and not users or Product Owners. Then it's harder to think about SRP the "official" way. But direct responsibility is easier to make decisions on.

Give credit to George Carlin for that one.

In this case you could view a swap partition as a safety net. Put 20-30GB in a swap partition in case something goes wrong. You won't miss the disk space.

I'm not sure a corvette has ever counted as "major" warship.

If I remember correctly, Objects were introduced in Turbo Pascal 5.5, not version 7.

Try living in Canada. Pretty much all the providers charge $15/day for roaming! No monthly plans available.

Yes, but it is designed that way so that the most common letters take less dits and dad's to encode. That reduces the overall work.

The "supposed to be...", is a really big problem.

First, it's factually wrong. Homosexuality occurs all through nature and it's not a mistake or random abberation. Presumably there's some advantage to having a percentage of any population not reproducing. Perhaps so that they aren't burdened with children and are free to fill other roles in their community, herd, flock or whatever. This increases the group survival/reproduction rate, even though they aren't reproducing themselves.

Secondly, "supposed to..." implies that there's something wrong with any non-heterosexual individual. It sounds like, at best, you'll accept their homosexuality as natural but, at the same time, you understand that they're actually defective. That attitude isn't going to lead to good things, and not something I would like to see widespread in society.

And finally, the fact that you would even say this points out the need for more education on this in schools, not less.

It doesn't have to be BYOD. The firm might willing to procure a specific machine for her. Or she might have enough clout to make them get her what she wants.

And yet I never see any mention of this anywhere. Even here, it seems that Biden is more concerned about whether the court can administer justice because it is so much out of balance. No mention, though, that the "balance" shouldn't even be a factor.

SCOTUS justices are appointed for life because it's supposed to put them above political considerations. No politician can influence them by threatening removal. Yet, there you are, SCOTUS is just as political as the other two branches.

To me, as a non-American, the most baffling thing is that everyone in the States just assumes, and accepts, that these appointed justices are going to rule according to some political bias.

That's not the way it works in the rest of the free world. Judges are, by definition, trusted to be impartial interpreters of the law/constitution. That's their role.

I live in Canada, and I'm vaguely familiar with some of the names of our Supreme Court justices, but I certainly don't know their political leanings, nor do I care. Nor does any Canadian I know. That's the way it's supposed to be.

So as far as I can see, the problem isn't that SCOTUS is stacked with Republicans, nor that it can be. The problem is that everyone seems to assume that this is the way it should be.