Why? Unless you check "don't ask again" it will always ask...

Because a single accidental click causes a permanent change.

It’s fine to have a settings page that lets you manage pop ups, but a pop up should always be extremely limited in scope.

Its not a permanent change? You just go into the apps settings and remove the intent.

The vast majority of users are not going to be aware of how to fix the behavior.

At the extreme, ‘connect to this wifi network’ and ‘reset to factory settings’ are obviously at different scales of importance and should have significantly different UI. Similarly open this app, and changing a setting are on different scales. Basically, it’s fine if the pop up takes you to some other UI element to make the change, but pop ups should have consistent importance.

Jupytext solves this for me completely. It is an extension to jupyter code which can be turned on (globally or per-notebook, with additional configuration options) which automatically syncs the notebook to a file which can be checked into git and has nice diffs. It is a two-way binding, so editing the file will include those changes in jupyter, and if you check out a file in that format it can be converted into a jupyter notebook on your side easily as well.

But they rarely host the bad shit themselves, so it still is easily blockable.

But there is zero reward for showing replication results. Not novel enough, you won't get published. And if you're unable to replicate it then maybe you just did it wrong, or there was a small trick they were using in the code which they left out of the paper, etc.

The answer is evident: replication has to become (once again) relevant.

Of course, agreed!

How?

Having replication studies/papers be on par with "innovation" studies/papers on academic conferences and journals. Or maybe not on par, but considering them as something worthy of publication.

While informal, I do not think his tone lacked civility.

I strongly prefer papers written in this style. Not only are they more enjoyable to read, but they are often easier to understand and more geniune as well. Papers written in a formal style often obscure the real motivation and instead provide a fancy-sounding retroactive justification. It makes the authors feel smarter, and I guess some readers feel smarter as well, but it belies the reality of research.

I don't think that was his motivation, I think his motivation was stated quite clearly in the abstract:

> The author's lone goal is to show that the entire field might have evolved a different direction if we had instead been obsessed with a slightly different acronym and slightly different result.

Julia does this. You can run the code and you get the output right next to it in an expandible dialog. You can write your while program this way, executing a line of code, tweaking it until it is correct. It can be quite nice. My one complaint is that VSCode doesn't have support for this, so it runs in Atom, and I find Atom to be quite slow and buggy.

Many of my relatives seem to have no interests or hobbies. I mean sure, they watch TV and movies, but it's not like they are deeply interested in them, they serve more as pastimes. They don't have anything they are actually passionate about.

Most people I meet seem to simply survive on instinct and mimicking others around them.

I find it really refreshing when I discover that someone is passionate about something, no matter what it is.

The possibility exists that I could just be a bad interviewer though.

> The possibility exists that I could just be a bad interviewer though.

Making small talk with people I have this thought constantly. Is the format of small talk what's preventing us from having a discussion about what you're passionate about or do they lack a passion?

Wouldn't this argument also apply to cars?

In fact, there's always some inherent risk that the item you're buying is damaged in an unnoticeable way, even if it is new. What if your car seat has a manufacturing defect? What if it was dropped during shopping? What if the store attendant dropped it while sticking the shelves? What if it was purchased, opened, and then returned to the store? Even if the store has a policy of not putting open box items back on the shelf, there are people who will go to great lengths to make it look unopened.

All this stuff is possible, I don't think there practical risk to buying a used car seat is all that much higher. Besides, what if you drop it. Are you going to buy a new one, just to be sure it isn't damaged?

What a strange rule. Debit cards presumably only cost the bank money if you use them.

So what. Everyone being capable of doing so should pay tax to maintain society functional. That banks should pay tax in form of a couple of free debit card transactions for poor people is not an unfair share. Banks earn enough money because society no longer works without debit cards.

No, I was saying that it is strange that the debit card is only free if you use it a few times. If you give me a debit card and I don't use it, what did it cost you? A few pennies for the plastic?

Ah, I read the original message as the card and its usage are free as long as you don't have too many transactions. No idea, my knowledge about Poland is very close to zero :(

It's not strange, it's the banks fighting back to prevent "cannibalization". Kind of like how Intuit lobbied the government to gimp the free tax tool.