A command line utility can form the basis of an editor plugin. Go/vim users typically run `gofmt` on save, and the reformatted code appears within the editor.
For an illustration of this, check out the very first scene of the TV series Deadwood. There's a lynch mob outside the sheriff's office, and they want to kill the person in the jail. The sheriff fends them off so he can legally hang him instead.
The creator originally wanted to do a series on ancient Rome, about the birthplace of civilization. The studio wanted a Western. He said, oh, perfect, that works, too.
And yet mob justice is exactly what we have in US, though sometimes with a legislative session's worth of delay. A constitutional republic protects against mob justice through individual guarantees of property and liberty, and further through strict limitations on the state's power. Our government, of course, has long since managed to rid itself of most of these limitations.
To illustrate a concept? Fictional media are ideal, as they can have the facts go however they want. What difference are you hallucinating between citing a philosophical paper discussing a thought experiment, and citing a television show?
You really have trouble with this kind of discussion? I'm not sure what would fix this thinking ... Maybe you should read books or learn thought experiments or just start with basic metaphors ... hrrmphh! I'm stumped!
Your problem is not that your family is conservative. I don't know how "bad" your GPA is, but if it's trending downward, the problem is not your aunt/grandfather's views on the world, however outdated they may be. You don't necessarily need to change their view on programming / open source, but you should appreciate they are concerned for you, possibly for good reason.
pg has a PhD in computer science from Harvard. Do you think his undergrad GPA was low?
You have four years to get a decent GPA, you have your entire life to contribute to open source. You can possibly do both while in college, but the former might be more important.
Once you get past the point that people care about your GPA, no one cares about your GPA.
You might need that GPA to get into a competitive academic program, to secure a research grant, to add another string to your bow when you try to convince an accelerator that you have the smarts to back up your charm and creativity, or simply to get a job at a competitive company.
No one cares about your GPA once you get past that point. That point is not necessarily graduation.
A low GPA can keep you out of a good grad school. (A low GPA can keep you out of officer school, if he wants to join the military as an officer.) 5 or 10 years down the road, yeah, it doesn't matter. But for his very next step after graduation, it probably does. (And next steps lead to next-next steps which lead to next-next-next steps.)
On the flip side: Linus Torvalds inventing Linux, or Guido van Rossum inventing Python has, I'm sure, benefited their own careers. I'm totally down with doing the "crazy, hippie, open-source thing" because it's your passion.
But: I'm guessing that Linus and Guido (and pg and others...) all did very well as undergrads. If you're destined to be an open-source badass (or a startup badass), then 4 years of good grades shouldn't be too painful.
(And, I'll just say it, anecdotally: finishing my physics degree made me into a smarter, better person. At the time, my quantum mechanics classes were the hardest things that I had ever done in my life. And now, my own hobbies are just as hard... and rewarding.)
edit: I'd like to mention that I didn't graduate college until I was 28. I can totally empathize with following an unusual path in life that your family doesn't approve of.
For one thing, he might not graduate at all. Ok, so he has his open source credentials. That might get him a job or give him connections to help start a company. But a bad academic record is not a positive indicator you are an open source genius awesomedude. Rather, good contributions to open source can make up for a bad academic record in the past.
Who knows, maybe the particular college is a bad fit, and there can be a million other problems. But explicitly sacrificing GPA for amorphous contributions to open source is like tithing when you can't feed yourself or your own family.
Maybe my own experience is outdated or not generally applicable, but one's grade in a computer science class is fairly indicative of how well you grasped the material. It is precisely the classes I did well in that I haven't needed to restudy (and vice-versa).
That's just absolutely not true. What is true is that not everyone in every situation cares about GPA. Also true is the idea that your GPA matters more and more if you on the extreme side of things (very high or very low). Someone who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard, for example, will want to show that to prospective employers even if they are 55 years old. Someone who graduated with a 2.2 from Podunk U will try to hide that even at 23 years old.
Who knows what will happen to OP over the next 10 years? Who knows what opportunities s/he may be in that would or would not require GPA disclosure? You don't. I don't. But to tell an unknown person who you know only 2-3 sentences about that "noone cares about your GPA" is just irresponsible. Perhaps no one cares about your GPA but those are reasons unique to you or your life.
You can stop reading after the picture, which happens to be at the top.
Why doesn't every programmer have a great GitHub profile? The same reason not every mother of 3 children looks like a fitness instructor. Priorities.
You write C++ all day at a bank, can't use any open source, and your mind is filled with the intractable legacy issues, politics, etc. Maybe you're married and your spouse wants to go salsa dancing on Tuesdays. Should you prioritize throwing some Ruby into GitHub? If you want to work for a startup, yes, you should. If you don't care, don't bother.
You might say this is frivolous lawsuit, and I'd agree. The plaintiffs have zero chance of winning, there is no coercion, there is no semblance of employment.
But.
Take a moment to think. What is the value of a website like this, without the user-generated content? A Yelp with no reviews, no photos, etc. is just a phonebook. Alternatively, a restaurant review with no platform, no audience is just a journal entry. It's symbiotic.
Maybe that's obvious. Ok, so. Yelp gets paid. Why don't the reviewers get paid? Too easy to game? Too impractical? Because people will do it for free anyway?
Musicians and exhibitionists will do it for free, too. That doesn't mean they are creating no value. It would be good if Yelp reviewers could be paid. It would be good if it were possible to pay people for the value they create voluntarily.
Here's a larger point from the mid twentieth century: what is the real value of a broadcast TV network with the viewers? IN a sense, the product the network produces is ad views, with the work being done by the audience.
I'm not saying that the audience is an employee, just that the model of not paying for value created by a crowd is large and old.
Imagine a (very fictional) Yelp user who has 0 money, will never go to a restaurant again in his life, or buy anything at all for that matter. But he has perfect memory and can write excellent reviews of thousands of restaurants he's been to in the past.
Does he have any value to Yelp as eyeball for advertisers? No. If Yelp's audience consisted completely of people like him, no one would ever advertise on Yelp again, no restaurant owner would ever pay Yelp for premium whatever status thing they sell.
But our fictional user can write reviews that are consumed by other users. He is providing real value to Yelp, as a non-eyeball.
In the television case, this guy is completely worthless.
Facebook is a simpler example, because most people are both supplying content and seeing ads. If there were no content, no one would go there to see the ads.
This doesn't answer the dichotomy of work vs. family, but puts it in a different context. What is the most effective way to spend your time?
The president's daughter scrapes her knee, but there's also a school shooting? I think Obama's gonna be giving a speech, and Michelle's on neosporin duty.
(West Wing spoiler alert 2003) The president's daughter is kidnapped? Well, I hope John Goodman is available, it's about to get Season 4 cliffhanger in here. Someone else can be president. Right now it's not the most effective use of Martin Sheen's time.
I don't particularly think it's important how Bush spent 7 minutes in response to an unprecedented situation. If he spent the next 7 months (or even 7 hours) going on a book reading tour, well... 9/11 was a confusing day. I was actually in a classroom at that exact same time, a mile uptown from the WTC. The professor got a whisper about the first plane, and then another about the second. I recall we broke class after the second. It's an easy target to criticize Bush, because it's a comical situation, but it has no real substance.
I agree in the West Wing situation, there is a national security concern. But why? Shouldn't this "great" man be able to use his power justly for the greater good, and not let things get personal? No, he understands he wouldn't be able to resist that temptation. Relinquishing his power is showing that his family is more important to him.
I don't know. I think it's more of a panic response than the right response.
Imagine this: "Kids, as President of the United States, I'm responsible for a lot of things. I just got a call that I have to take care of. I'm sorry. But I promise I'll come back and finish reading this book to you some other time."
The problem is not gender parity at conferences, but gender parity in the industry. You see the inverse at conferences in fields dominated bg women, and there are no "boy tickets".
Maybe gender parity in a conference could help improve gender parity in industry?
It could make sense for boy tickets (perhaps with a better name) to exist in conferences in women-dominated fields, but it would be up to each conference to decide if gender parity is something they want and if they want to encourage it in this way.
This article conflates the ideas of pure price discrimination (where goods are identical) and premium pricing (where they are not).
No one is better at this than the travel industry. Remember that story about a travel website showing higher prices to people with Apple User-Agents? Yup.
If a restaurant wants to charge $1,000 for a premium cheeseburger on the off chance some rich person wants to distinguish himself, well, that's weird, but that's capitalism.
But if this "software" were to read everyone's mind and calculate exactly how much they are willing to pay for any good at any time, consumers will get fleeced.
The article is deeply confused as you point out. And you're right, since the effect of price discrimination is for producers to capture consumer surplus, you don't want that mind reading machine.
