Experiments on how to make tea (well does milk go in before or after) is the original exposition of statistical testing of the null hypothesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_tasting_tea

I usually see articles saying that Java checked exceptions are bad.

e.g. https://www.javacodegeeks.com/2026/01/javas-checked-exceptio...

It really depends on how reliable you want the code to be. Many business application developers prioritize development speed and don't want to think about errors, for them checked exceptions may seem like a hassle. For developers who prioritize reliability unchecked exceptions are a huge problem because they are not part of the contract and can change without notice.

Because java is garbage-collected and doesn't have any of the problems of C++ exceptions, so checked exceptions just become a nuisance of having to try/catch everything.

You don't have to try/catch everything.

You do have to catch checked exceptions and that is the issue under debate.

No, you can just declare that the exception in the throws clause.

Although having lost their cheif desihner recently there is a chnace thet they might improve and go back to the standards of 10 years ago.

Also see weathergraph that does similar graph and shows the temps etc in a downwards colum,n as well

Good so the car won't be killing people due to high noxious emissions.

Yes Dark Sky had the best UI of any weather app I have used.

I now use Weathergraph which does it differently but I would go back to Dark Sky (and pay for it) in a flash.

It shows the correct things and on a phone understands that showing the temperatures across the screen is useless as if I go out I want to know what the weather is like when I might make the journey back in 8+ hours time. I might not care what the weather is in 4 hours time as I will be inside.

The point here is you worked tech support so you were paid to answer user questions.

However the answerers on So are not paid. Why should tyhy waste their time on a user who has not shown they have put any effort in and asks a question that they have already answered several times before?

Nobody, least of all me, is saying people should work for free. But not being paid to do something you don't want to do is a reason to go do something else, not hang around and be a hostile, superior dick about it, alienating the users.

The answerers are just as much users as the questioners - possibly in fact more as they are the ones spending time whilst the askers often (especially the poor ones) just ask a question and then go away.

Unfortunately the SO management want money and so want the fly away askers more than the answerers who provide the benefit of the site.

> However the answerers on So are not paid. Why should tyhy waste their time on a user who has not shown they have put any effort in and asks a question that they have already answered several times before?

This is kind of a weird sentiment to put forth, because other sites namely Quora actually do pay their Answerer's. An acquintance of mine was at one time a top "Question Answerer" on Quora and got some kind of compensation for their work.

So this is not the Question-Asker's problem. This is the problem of Stack Overflow and the people answering the questions.

And the bank where I worked in mid 1990s had the same each program in its own versioned directory.

You encrpyt your hard drive - so that needs a password.

So you need more than a simple script.

But someone else having your hardware has always bveen a risk.

tau might make things easier and be a better basis for everything but it is not good for Euler's as you then miss out -