I'm so excited. I just realized something. My nephew's old enough to go trick or treating now and my sisters got him on Halloween this year. I am totally going to go rock that and be the creepy uncle reliving my childhood favorite holiday. I have an excuse now.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, link at end of body, link following arrow in body, pattern-matching website in body: Brain Booster Health by Taylah Jhon on drupal.stackexchange.com
I was looking for a solution to a problem I am having with ng-options in angularJS
(Basically - I need to have it NOT add an empty value when the model isn't yet initialized but instead select the first option - I can't initialize the model because the options come out of a promise and then are filtered by a | operator in the ng-options)
I found something that matches my requirement, a custom directive on github.
this is the second line of the comments in the directive:
I got a dv here but except that it doesn't contain enough Linq I can't see what might be wrong. Strangely enough I think the accepted answer seems wrong as I have to assume their TAX property is of a type string. Do I miss something obvious?
@Bart they'll be happy with anything that solves their problem, and there's always the (slim) chance they'll learn how to use the scary way and adapt it. :)
@rene and what's wrong with either of those? I'm not saying to convert int x = 1 + 1; to LINQ, but generally speaking, it does make programming lot easier.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] URL in title, link at end of body, link following arrow in body, pattern-matching website in body, pattern-matching website in title: newhealthsupplement.com/juggernox by robertrael on drupal.stackexchange.com
I hold onto the hope that generational behaviors alternate and hopefully a few generations down the line kids will just rebel and be normal people again.
As soon as a generation of kids gets pissed off that their parents spent more time looking at their phones than paying attention to them, it'll be fine.
I know the hypocrisy in this since I'm both a software dev and a gamer, but spending literally 99% of your waking time staring at various forms of screen can't be healthy
I was the adult supervisor for a date my cousin had once (her parents couldn't make it and the restaurant wouldn't let them in unless an adult was accompanying)
I don't have anything against spending all one's time staring at a screen, as long as you're like, in a place that isn't surrounded by reality. Like, crossing the street.
My big social problem that I rant about is all these kids growing up communicating with eachother either anonymously, or with no body language feedback. Then when they have to interact with real people, they're completely dysfunctional.
Thankfully their parents were very open minded so I didn't have to watch anything else that weekend and they could spend the weekend at the parent's house w/o interruption
I know how annoying it is to have an adult in the house "just because"
Like for example, I've double-parked people into their parking spots before. If some in their 30's or 40's comes out, almost always they just straightforwardly say "Hey I've got to move my car, can you back up?" "Yeah no problem sorry about that." "Thanks."
But if somebody in their 20's comes out they simply don't know how to interact. Usually they just get angry off the bat, acting like it was the rudest thing ever. Super aggro.
And when you respond to them politely all of a sudden their attitude changes back to a normal person.
But they just don't know how to initiate an interaction out of the gate.
I blame that on lack of communicating with verbal and body language cues.
Well it's like, if you have a generation used to making and dealing with atrocities like YouTube comment threads as their primary mode of communication, when they have to interact in real life, they immediately start off on the defensive. That's a problem.
A younger crowd now maybe just as callous and stupid, I think.
It depends on what comes first: The online interactions, or the physical ones.
It's not so much identity as it is lack of physical cues. So tied together or not, if you grow up without interacting with people in reality, you're going to turn out differently. Louis CK's got a good bit about it lemme find it.
Oh and not to mention the fact that the last 15 years has basically blown away and invalidated a century of child psychology, given how exposed children are to the world outside their immediate family and friends now.
@JanDvorak I think that in the future, maybe not so far ahead, this will be real, i.e. the only way to use the internet will be after giving unique real identification like eye scanning or fingerprint scanning, then the identity will be sent just like the IP address.
> Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. -- Robert E Howard
Media success relies on programming young kids, it's always been that way. And it always will be. It's just a given. It's fine. It's just business. It's up to parents to give kids the tools they need to make their own decisions. That's where problems like what @Magisch was talking about come in.
I do really, really like that the internet gives kids options about what to consume. That's a super positive change over the past, I think.
That's what that first Louis CK bit I posted above was about, and one of the things I think is the issue, sort of related to the example I gave about parking my car.
so while maybe the fear of consequence would stop you from robbing a bank, it will probably do nothing while you decide to try and see if you can make someone cry on roblox, for example
If you get bullied online a lot you have no recourse, really, and no way to get any feedback on your ability to defend yourself. So you end up coming out of the gate defensive in real life, without being able to handle yourself.
@JasonC For later: When you're navigating online, often the only way to make your response count is to think of the most vile, vitriolic and revolting thing you could say back - thats why people resort to death threats over near everything these days
@AaronHall, @Bart Well, the thing to keep in mind is: It's always possible that it wasn't actually a bad question, and you misjudged, in which case the extra info an answer gives may cause you to rethink your opinion. The other possibility is it wasn't the greatest question, but somebody who answered it was able to interpret it in a way that you weren't, and in that case perhaps retroactively improving the clarity of the question is in order.
It's not really cut and dry. It totally depends on the question, the answer, the context, your mood, your cat's mood, etc.
You just gotta remember that in some cases, other people interpret things in a way that puts them on the same page as the asker even if you're not on the same page (which isn't a shortcoming on anybody's part, it's just a fact).
I guess another case is if the question is so bad that it's almost good to have around as a warning sign; like my favorite example is stackoverflow.com/questions/3905734/… - which currently holds the title as SO's biggest reversal.
@AaronHall not really. If your answers for example clarify the question, that still implies the question wasn't good/clear enough. But granted, nothing is black or white. Varying levels of grey, with the occasional beige.
Self-answered improvements, that I'm not sure about... I mean if you asked "How do I de-asterisk my somaflange?" and then self-answered it with "It sounds like you've forgotten that array indices in C start at 0" and accepted that answer on the grounds that you totally knew what you meant, that's not really a fair retro clarification.
Yeah; so from the pov of a reader who wasn't you, who didn't understand the question like you did, your answer in a way made the question better, and then your edit highlighted that.
@Bart Wth dude stop power tripping. Typical. I'm sick of this site. Good luck, morons.
Maybe what I'm saying is this: Yes, great answers can provide more clarity to a question. That however does not make the question better. It, in isolation, is still as poor as it was before. (Assuming there were not clarifying edits)
It was then that @JasonC got flagged and suspended for his language in chat. Comedy never backfired as beautifully
And, @AaronHall, my personal take on it, which is different than Bart's (and Bart's take is very reasonable), is: Sometimes great answers can make a reader realize a question wasn't as poor as it originally looked.
If you think the questions' and answers' scores aren't related, you ignore the mountains of evidence on these sites for it. In spite of the "reversals."
I remember a rather trivial question some time ago that had an absolutely brilliant answer by Jon Skeet. In return, the question got quite some upvotes just because of the amount of visits and the appreciation of the answer (of course, that's my interpretation). But that doesn't mean (to me) that the question has become great in light of the answer.
Then again, I'm a grumpy Dutch guy who is trying to find darkness where there is light. So interpret that as you wish.
@bluefeet since Jeff left there is a feeling that things can radically change in SE, and that feeling is still there for me. All the changes so far were cosmetic or new additions, but I believe the current management and team can, and will, touch the very core and change it if convinced it is required. Not talking about removing downvotes or accepts, but something like letting votes expire, or change the sort algorithm is possible. Just need someone strong enough from the inside to push it. :)
