What you say is true, but doesn’t really answer “Could someone take down Wikipedia [without completely shutting off the internet]”. For obvious reasons, shutting internet access completely off isn’t going to happen short of an insurrection or a war.
Shutting down Wikipedia specifically is much harder. As others have pointed out, there are many thousand copies of Wikipedia lying around on peoples private devices. If Wikipedia were actually taken down (blocked by the government in some sense) hundreds of mirrors would likely pop up immediately, and it would be more or less impossible for the government to go after each individual site that some person decides to host, short of just cutting internet access completely.
In Norway we have the stereotypical Norwegians “Ola Nordmann” and “Kari Nordmann”. Ola and Kari were quite common names a couple generations ago (not so common now). “Nordmann” literally translates to “Norwegian [person]”, but is also a not-too-uncommon last name.
We typically talk about them if we’re describing something or some situation and what the stereotypical Norwegian would do/think.
I definitely agree that breaking best practices in a way that could lead to UB or hard-to-find bugs should give point deduction. The sole requirement shouldn’t be “write standard compliant code”.
However, a test does not simulate a real-world development environment, where you will have time to look through your code with fresh eyes the next day, and maybe even have someone review your code. The only thing a test reasonably simulates is your ability to solve the “thinking” part of the problem on your own. Thus, deducting points for trivial stuff that would 10/10 times be caught, either by the compiler, the developer or the reviewer, but isn’t “strictly correct” just seems pedantic to me.
To be fair, other than the example by OP I have a hard time coming up with things that wouldn’t be either caught by the compiler or are very bad practice (which should give point deduction).
I have a masters degree in materials chemistry and engineering. When people find that out they often say stuff like “I could never understand that” or similar.
I am of the firm belief that I could teach anyone everything I know given enough time and motivation. The thing is, I don’t think there’s anything special about me that makes me capable of doing what I do, other than thinking chemistry is extremely interesting. I don’t have a more capable brain or anything. I’m just a bit of a nerd.
I absolutely agree that way too many people have the misconception that you have to be “special” to do a lot of the things many people find hard. It’s all about being interested enough to spend time learning it.
Maybe not your generic “discussions”, but at c/askscience we can discuss interesting (and more or less absurd) scientific questions and hypotheticals, if you’re into that kind of thing ;)
Great answer! I’m just commenting because I think this would be a question that would be nice to post on c/askscience where I regularly lurk and look for cool questions to answer, but where there aren’t too many questions being asked yet :)
I’m one of the people that thinks the world is probably going to shit (mass migration from uninhabitable land, wars over water / farmland etc.) but I don’t use that as an excuse to not do anything. My reasoning is that even though I honestly think everything is going to shit, I might be wrong, so the best I can do is plan to go down fighting to make the world better. Either the world burns, and I can say with integrity that I tried my best, or we somehow pull through and prevent the worst prognosis from becoming reality. Either way, slacking is a bad idea.
I do what I can to prevent the worst case scenario, but when anyone asks how I think this is going to go, I always answer “I objectively think we are all going to burn and die, but I’m not going down without a fight.” That’s all it is. I don’t think we are going to save the world, but I want to go down swinging.
There’s a reasonable probability that I’ll be heavily downvoted for this, but it’s my two cents, so here I go. For clarity, I’ll in the following use “male” and “female” to refer to biological groups identified by their reproductive organs (by far most people can clearly be identified as one or the other), and “man” and “women” to refer to groups of people that identify as such.
Sex (the action) is pretty fundamentally tied to your reproductive organs. As such, I think it makes most sense to define “straight” vs. “bi” vs. “gay” in terms of sex (the attribute). I would say that a male that is exclusively attracted to females is “straight”, while a male that is exclusively attracted to women “bi with a strong preference for women”, and that a male that is exclusively attracted to males is “gay”.
My reasoning here is twofold: First, a male that is attracted to women can have a range for how “female presenting” the woman has to be before they are interested. Some will only consider women that have gone through surgery and full hormonal therapy attractive, while others will find women without any surgery or hormone therapy attractive. This brings up the second point: A lot of sexuality becomes a lot easier to talk about (and de-stigmatize) if we accept that sexuality is a continuous spectrum. If we accept that, it makes sense to me to use one word for each extreme, and a more fluid language for the bulk of the spectrum. I know plenty of bi people that have more or less strong preferences towards one side of the spectrum, and some that are completely agnostic. I think a lot of stigma can be removed if we’re more open to people being “just slightly bi”, while we can keep the language clear by reserving “straight” and “gay” for the two extremes.
Finally, if we use “straight” to refer to e.g. males that are exclusively attracted to women, we open an unnecessary can of worms regarding males that are attracted to people who identify as women, but don’t present as female. In short: Sex (act) is fundamentally tied to sex (attribute), so it makes sense to me to define sexuality in terms of sex, rather than gender.