Stack Exchange
log in

Michael

 Discussion on question by RudolphTheR…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Michael
Jan 12, 2023 17:40
@Arthur I appreciate it anyway. I found this and I'm reading through it
Michael
Jan 12, 2023 17:40
@Arthur So given an infinite number of throws, the probability is still not zero, but infinitesimal. Mathematicians draw a distinction between "do X an infinite number of times" and "no matter how long you do X"? That seems like the same thing to me.
Michael
Jan 12, 2023 17:40
@Arthur I'm not a mathematician, but in the coin-flip case, doesn't the probability asymptotically approach zero without ever being zero? If you are asked the probability of pulling a blue ball from a bag of 4 blue balls - 100% - you'd call that "almost certain"?
 

 Discussion on question by Mitsuko: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Michael
Dec 22, 2020 10:55
"and I am an undergraduate student who has to pay her rent and bills" ... "I beg". Do not use this phrasing in western culture, unless you are happy with being underpaid or otherwise messed around. You are not doing them a favour. You are providing a valuable service which they are free to purchase according to your specified terms, or not at all. This talk is very blunt but makes some important points which will help you (hopefully it will not offend, but this is the difference in culture you are dealing with): "f*ck you, pay me"
 

 Discussion on answer by Flater: Why p…

Imported from a comment discussion on movies.stackexchange.com...
Michael
Aug 5, 2020 10:08
Don't overestimate how much the general public cares about absolute realism. A huge number of the highest grossing films of all time are Marvel films. People largely do not care whether an actor's hair behaves according to the laws of physics. Most will not even know how it's supposed to behave. People are willing to suspend their disbelief for a compelling story.
 

 Discussion on answer by schroeder: em…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
Michael
Apr 11, 2020 15:14
You already admitted to not actually using such programs, so maybe you don't know: all 'private' means in that case is the manner of disclosure of the bug. The program itself is still actively advertised, and they'll often include a budget. Here is one example of a private program, with a published budget: hackerone.com/celo
Michael
Apr 11, 2020 15:14
@schroeder Then can you give an example of a bug bounty program that does not match what I described?
Michael
Apr 11, 2020 15:14
@schroeder A bug bounty model is a different thing, where the company is actively marketing their budget and welcoming reports. You suggest that agreeing a fee after is "how a professional would approach [it]". My point was that it is possible to navigate this situation amicably and professionally, even when they do not have such a program, and without compromising your ability to get whatever you deem to be a fair reward
Michael
Apr 11, 2020 15:14
"I also don't ask for money, but if I did, it would be after I did as much as I could to help their team resolve it" If you were someone who was looking for what they considered fair remuneration then this puts you in a terrible bargaining position. The way to ensure both sides are happy with this arrangement is not to agree to terms before or after the details are revealed. A contract should be drawn up which outlines the potential consequences if the vulnerability were exploited. If the vulnerability matches the scale/severity then the fee is paid. A court would settle any disputes
 

 Discussion on question by JustAThrowa…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Michael
Jan 21, 2020 17:29
@bluegreen ~95% of sex workers are women. With that in mind, do you think the assumption is really that interesting? (I did deliberately avoid gender above, just saying)
Michael
Jan 21, 2020 17:29
@StephanBranczyk Seems extremely weird for someone in that position to act that way though. Surely its equally embarrassing for him, the client, and he certainly has more to lose if the word got out. What we would he have done if OP had called his bluff and said straight up "you were a former client of mine"?
 

 Discussion on answer by Joe Strazzere…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Michael
Apr 19, 2019 02:35
"one of the 7 top schools" sounds weird. I would read that as "precisely 7th best"
 

 Discussion on answer by motosubatsu: …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Michael
Jan 17, 2019 16:39
@motosubatsu Well, at least there are worse vowels you could have forgotten from that acronym
Michael
Jan 17, 2019 16:39
@motosubatsu Then it's IANAL.
 

 Discussion on answer by mxyzplk: Is t…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Michael
Jun 21, 2018 21:11
@Mehrdad I actually did that already
Michael
Jun 21, 2018 21:11
@Martijn I don't think it is polite. It's very passive aggressive. Thinking that you're better placed to solve the problem is fine - asserting that anyone else's input will only be something between useless and actively harmful is just narcissism.
 

 Discussion on answer by Martijn: Is t…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Michael
Jun 21, 2018 14:31
I think it's clear that he doesn't value their input: "I'm better off going in fresh and deciding for myself." i.e. "my opinion > your opinion, so don't even bother giving me yours"
Michael
Jun 21, 2018 14:31
He should not say he wants a blank slate. Doing so says you don't value their input. There's plenty of people whose input I don't particularly value but you should never tell anyone that or even imply it. As Rick I would say "Thanks. While I appreciate the suggested fix, we'll need to perform a full investigation ourselves anyway. As such, investigating issues for us in future may not be the most productive use of your time because there'll be a necessary duplication of effort. In future, just a detailed bug report will be more than good enough! Thanks again."
Michael
Jun 21, 2018 14:31
"It's his job to fix problems, not yours" Sure. In which case he should make the case that, by investigating the issue before submitting the report, there becomes a necessary duplication of effort. The spiel about it being an actively harmful contribution is just accusatory, undermining nonsense.
 

 Discussion on question by Sally101: H…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Michael
Apr 5, 2018 20:38
FWIW I work in finance in London and it's nothing like that.
 

 Discussion on answer by Fattie: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Michael
Mar 23, 2018 13:03
@Fattie Your entire justification seems to be "it came to my mind immediately, so it's obviously correct". Laughable, really.
Michael
Mar 23, 2018 13:03
The fact that it's so frequently written 'religious proscription' heavily implies that 'proscription' is not by definition necessarily related to religion. Professional authors generally don't write tautologies for no reason.
 

 Discussion on question by user4378676…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Michael
Jul 5, 2017 18:34
@Mindwin That's the total added, but not necessarily the total OP has spent. You also don't know how much was left on the card when OP left (and neither does he).
 

 Discussion on question by Rebecca: Ac…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Michael
Jun 29, 2017 21:58
"I have been a project manager ... without being technical" "I had a couple of subordinates file a formal complaint against me stating I am not technical ... They are all inaccurate." Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
 

 Discussion on answer by Gary: What is…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Michael
May 28, 2017 22:32
@alephzero maybe. Still, I'm sure that that introduction is an attempt to clarify, suggesting they weren't confident "anyone that understands the English language" would know the meaning.
Michael
May 28, 2017 22:32
@alephzero whydya think i linct 2 ngrams m8
Michael
May 28, 2017 22:32
Interesting, though I think its telling that it's in inverted commas in the title, and that there's a sneaky not-quite-definition hidden in the second paragraph: "when De Abaitua worked as a live-in assistant for Self".
Michael
May 28, 2017 22:32
I'm a native English speaker and I've never, ever heard it uttered. Ahem.
Michael
May 28, 2017 22:32
Cool word but no one would have any idea what you were talking about.
 

 Discussion on question by Mathematics…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Michael
May 4, 2017 18:05
If I understand your situation, I feel your question could be made considerably more concise. TLDR: we need a team lead and my manager is hesitant to promote me because she thinks the current team will be resistant.
 

 Discussion on answer by JimmyJames: G…

Imported from a comment discussion on softwareengineering.stac...
Michael
May 4, 2017 10:05
But yes, a point we agree on. Constructors can't currently do this. However, if you're adding those static methods purely so that it's easier to implement some kind of caching or object pool later on, you're very much over-designing. Again, YAGNI. Maybe creating too many of these objects will prove to be a problem but you'll only know once you've measured it.
Michael
May 4, 2017 09:53
"Back before auto-boxing was a feature in Java. You could create a Integer instance from an int in two main ways..." That's an interesting example but it's really only applicable to value types. If Java 10 adds proper support for value types, it will no longer be a concern.
Michael
May 4, 2017 09:44
"You just keep saying having methods on classes is bad. You haven't explained why." Haha! That's definitely not what I think. Having fewer methods is better than having many but you obviously need and should have some.
Michael
May 4, 2017 09:35
"This makes no sense. How does using interfaces eliminate the need for methods?" That wasn't what I was saying. If you'd seen my implementation, I have more classes which implement a common interface and fewer types of method.
Michael
May 4, 2017 09:33
"I can't imagine how you can manage to work with the most commonly used classes in the JDK or in popular libraries". Well, a lot of the JDK is badly designed (look at java.util.Date for an extreme example) and so are many libraries.
Michael
May 4, 2017 09:24
"You keep saying that adding a few methods is too confusing" 'confusing' is possibly the wrong word (as far as I can see, I didn't use it). It's easier to use a class that gives you fewer choices. That much should be obvious. The seven plus/minus two rule is worth considering.
Michael
May 4, 2017 09:14
"Hiding constructors is one of the easiest ways to make code refactorable." As in, because it gives the you the option to return a sub-type later on? While that's true, it would seem very strange to me for Foo.makeThing() to return a SubFoo if Foo itself is instantiable. Indeed, Bloch only talks about these static factory methods with regards to non-instantiable classes e.g. Collections. I think I'd be in favour of an approach like that, given a more complex example
Michael
May 4, 2017 09:01
@JimmyJames "You don't want to create methods on the class that handle those cases. What is it that you think is a better solution?" Indeed. See above.
Michael
May 4, 2017 08:30
@JimmyJames I posted it twice and I've referred to it multiple times in conversation with you: ideone.com/KhdxyW
Michael
May 3, 2017 17:03
"DRY" etc. I fail to see where the duplication is in my code. Feel free to point it out.
Michael
May 3, 2017 17:01
It's just as easy to find and use implementations of an interface using your IDE, generated JavaDoc etc. Don't tell me you still use vim?
Michael
May 3, 2017 17:00
"putting it somewhere where it's easily found and reused is puzzling" Importantly, because large APIs are difficult to use and also because large classes are more difficult to maintain.
Michael
May 3, 2017 16:57
"suggests to me that you are confused" I wish you'd stop being so patronising.
Michael
May 3, 2017 16:56
"What you are describing does not align with good software practice." It would be nice to know in what ways it does not align. Like seriously, please tell me! If you don't then I'm not getting anything out of this discussion. I've provided actual direct criticism of your approach and you haven't provided any for mine.
Michael
May 3, 2017 16:53
"I've written Java using a number of different styles and worked with code written in many more ways." Again, I'm afraid that's almost entirely meaningless. But good for you.
Michael
May 3, 2017 16:52
@JimmyJames "inexperience is not the opposite of experience" Of course it is...
Michael
May 2, 2017 21:54
Your example tries too hard to expose the state of the object (3 getters). Really we should try and avoid having anything which exposes the state. In this case, maybe that's not possible. (maybe it is, if all we care about is that it's below a threshold)
Michael
May 2, 2017 21:51
And it goes against the second because you're relying on a concrete implementation to provide the factory methods
Michael
May 2, 2017 21:50
Your example goes against the first because the number of convenience methods could continue to grow every single time someone decides they want to create a duration with a new unit
Michael
May 2, 2017 21:48
I guess the things I'm advocating are mainly: 1) keeping classes small (easier to maintain, test and use), and 2) designing to an interface