Raider5678

Man, I was really close to being on point with that joke.

Hey, I'm with you dude. I have no clue.

It does work actually. Type the first 4-5 letters of the variable, then hit tab when that variable you want is highlighted, and it almost always gets it right. Visual studio accounts for variable types and it also predicts the variable you're going to use from some sort of artificial intelligence algorithm. Works quite well.

I used visual studio, and it has the auto-completion feature. But I've never actually used it. Naming conventions for variables where I work at are usually just "Make sure they're descriptive" not that they follow an order that allows them to be identified faster. That being said we don't program in form 5 much either, so this situation wouldn't apply very often.

Is there a point where variable names become too descriptive? For example, would "InsufficientPermissionsErrorString" have sufficed? (Go CamelCase!)

I've had to do a lot of it with absolutely no commenting. I'd actually venture to say that descriptive variable names are more useful(But this doesn't mean that comments shouldn't be used!!!!!!!!!! Just that they're not as helpful as descriptive variable names.) . Using your code example: For example #1. I'll read the words above. That'll take me 17 words. I'll then read the code below it. That'll translate to me as: "If fuel level is smaller then the minimum fuel level, ring the alarm bell." (14 words) I still would have had to read the 14 words of code. The comments simply would have made it take twice as long to read. However, had it been extremely complicated to understand the code, such as parsing out delimited data, comments are definitely warranted.

I'm not sure about other religions, however, the Judeo Christian religion prohibits them from testing their God. I thought it was concluded that the people who were being prayed for were less likely to take their medicine as well? IIRC. I could be wrong.

Would this be considered an almost complete overlap?

Important differences include levels of aggressiveness. Testosterone has been proven to increase levels of aggressiveness in humans, male or female. That being said, males naturally produce more testosterone than females. You can say that the aggressiveness isn't actually hormonal but instead, it's cultural, but if you're going to say that you need to ignore how animals behave as well, with some species having a more aggressive gender. Additionally, we know it can be directly linked to hormones in males because transexuals who take testosterone have been shown to have higher levels of aggression afterward. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/helenthomson/2017/12/21/testosterone-treatment-makes-transmen-more-aggressive-especially-if-their-periods-persist/#1871bc975b9d There is a counter-argument that testosterone isn't solely linked to aggression: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm However, the article essentially says that they display lower levels of aggression in an attempt to climb a "hierarchy". And the attempt to climb in social status is typically known as ambition, which is a form of aggression. So it kind of does a 180. Additionally, this outlook isn't something I just randomly made up, this outlook is reaffirmed by this study: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/attraction-evolved/201707/does-testosterone-really-just-make-men-aggressive It's important to indicate that aggression is not solely violence and murder, it's linked to a lot of things.

So pointing out there are generally hormonal differences between men and women is being a racist and a sexist? Better yet, what do you suggest I do? There is an either-or approach in your stance. Either I do the approach that will generally offend one group and not the other, or I do the approach that will not offend one group and will offend the other. (Again, generally.) I don't see why I must purposefully go out of my way to say something I know is going to hurt someone, in the name of tearing down gender stereotypes which can be adequately proven to partially be in under the influence of hormones. Likewise, I don't see why I must refuse to say something to anyone, even if they find it funny, simply because it may offend someone else if it was directed at them. Additionally, you may continue to claim I'm saying absolutes, but I'm not. I'm simply saying, that until I know the person better, I can simply not say something that might offend them. While you didn't use this argument yet, I'm certain it will be said later on "Well why don't you just not assume anything about anyone until you know them?". The argument that I must withhold any and all assumptions of what they might be like is ludicrous. Am I simply suppose to stare at them and not say anything until I know who they are? Just because not absolutely EVERYONE will be disturbed if I bring up a dead relative of theirs, does that mean I must ignore the fact that it will disturb many people? Anything I do is based on the assumption of what they might be like. I said it. You disagreed with it. I thought that implied that you held that position.

Then you're going to have to prove it. No. And that is nothing like what I said, and you know it. Again, I simply pointed out to the hormonal differences between men and women, and that in some cases, they react different ways to different things. So, as a result, using what I know is a common trait, I just don't do something. Again, if you want to simply say that biological differences do not play a part, and that hormones do not play a part in how someone thinks, then you're going to need to prove it. I read the thread. And I'm saying I don't believe its only culture. I also provided reasoning as to that, and additionally I provided reasoning as to why I think it's also biological as well. Jesus, iNow. This isn't exactly rocket science. If you want to make a claim, you need to prove it.

Then please clarify this, as it seems that you're saying there is nothing biological about it, and it's all culture:

If you're going to say it's all culture and biology plays absolutely no role, then you need to prove it. If that's not what you meant, then please clarify. I don't think it's sexist, I think it's being logical. While I don't know for a fact that all girls will get offended at a joke regarding their weight, if I know that a majority of them will, I can simply not do it to any of them. What I described was taking a negative action, as in not doing something, because it has a high chance of hurting someone if I do it to a particular gender. That being said, on the flip side, why should I not make the same joke to a guy who I know won't get offended and will laugh at the joke, simply because I won't make the joke to someone of the opposite gender?

Proof that it's cultural and not biological? I mean, I know people who were raised in drastically different situations, and across gender lines share many similar personality traits. Surely, if it was cultural, then you'd see drastic differences in how women act across cultures correct? I have a hard time with this argument because it's rather vague to simply blame culture, and automatically discount biology when we know hormones can and do affect how we think, and men and women have different hormones. Let's look at animals, for example. In some species, there is a "dominant" gender. And while I'm not saying humans should be like animals and have a dominant gender, I am saying that it indicates that biology does in fact play a big part in psychology, even outside of culture. Unless animals have a culture which they're born with?

Fair point. What do you disagree with?