The important distinction here (and I get it, analogies are always imperfect) is that the photograph analogy has “hidden variables”. That is, each half is fixed at the moment of their separation and you just don’t know what’s in the envelopes until you open one. That’s not how entangled particles work though, and which “half” is which is not determined until the instant of measurement, at which point the state of both are known and fixed.
Well I know these people and they’re great plus they’re married now :)
You’re right, I had it wrong. Misinformation deleted.
deleted by creator
There are literally dozens of us!
How does that logically follow? It seems obvious to me that if every choice is going to piss people off then you simply disregard that as a factor and then make the best choice possible. If that had been their decision process and status quo was the best choice on the merits then that would be perfectly reasonable. That was not, however, the process they described in their blog, instead they remained entirely focused on the one issue that they should have ignored.
They did pick a solution that pisses off a large portion of their user base, that’s exactly what choosing to do nothing means when attempting to fix the most complained about issue with your language. Doing nothing is a choice too after all.
I see it as a pretty clear sign of dysfunction in the project unfortunately. Being unable to reach an actionable decision to improve on the most disliked part of the language (I’m personally ambivalent, I find that the repetitive error handling quickly fades into the background, but I also really love the ? operator in rust) is a bad sign.
after much deliberation, we’ve decided to do absolutely nothing
lol, lmao even
It’s really not even converting, as percent is literally “1/100” (per-cent = per 100). It’s purely convenient shorthand.
This is pretty conclusively addressed by the Bell Inequalities and empirically tested. It’s absolutely counter-intuitive and feels “wrong” but it is definitely how our universe operates.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9OM0jSTeeBg A relatively short but decent explainer for Bell’s Theorem and the Nobel prize winning experiment to successfully test it.