Oh wow. This is in the same vein as someone secretly spitting in your food. A more appropriate equivalent is continuing your beer with water. Why ruin a thing someone uses and expects to be normal? Maybe they don’t notice it now, but maybe they’ll have to switch (needlessly!) brands thinking it got worse or just simply doesn’t work, and it’s a whole process trying out what works for your hair. Why throw that, intentionally, at someone?

I’m out of touch here, what happened? No longer use it, but have some previously stored data there, should I do a purge? Is it dead or did they transition to something profit-driven and questionable?

The way I understand the word, it’s more of a “fling”, or a short-term relation, as opposed to something long-lasting or structured. Which, for example, can be fully okay and include no shadiness if it’s communicated with the partner or partners.

I guess words change meaning over time, and since the default has been monogamy for so long, the word is still stigmatized and associated with cheating since it means something short?

As an example, single people can often be heard to have had vacation affairs, which wouldn’t imply cheating since they are single. But the word is used in that context too.

I’m not sure if an affair directly implies cheating.

There are many ways to coexist with a partner or partners, and many ways to cheat or otherwise lie/conceal stuff.

Neither as a premise include an affair, but both certainly can.

Yup, that seam/twist there on the foreground is almost a definitive giveaway

Edit: I mean I guess that especially a rich person could, for some reason, wear a weird ass scarf designed by someone who thinks in a very out-of-the-box way… but which is more likely?

Just saying, Steam controller is great and works amazingly still, made only better by the ongoing updates to steam input.

I’m not sure what else they’d need to do. Other than still produce it, I suppose 😅

Yeah, the two aren’t equivalent and the original has more conditions than the new one, so without context this just doesn’t make sense in this example.

A is “” only when B is also “”, otherwise we return f()

In the new one we simply say that regardless of what B is, we’ll just call f(), entirely skipping the case where B == “”.

Probably this specific condition checking was moved to the inner scope of f(), but this example does not tell us (who don’t know the context) that. Or maybe the check is redundant, but that also isn’t signaled in any way.

Or then maybe I’m just oblivious to the optimization, in which case I can see why the maintainer would take their time figuring that out. It’s not anything obvious based on that alone, at least to me, and I would say I have some experience in this field.

Edit: But yeah this is basically just semantics, I’m sure they gave apt description in the PR, so the context would be explained there and none of this really matters. I just like to ruminate about little things like this for some reason. Didn’t mean to imply they didn’t do a good PR, just that this specific example was either confusing or confused.

The way people use it should’ve risen some eyebrows on your part if that is the case.

Shouting “YOLO” as one jumps off a roof (to a pool, for example) seems to be the contemporary stereotype for its usage. I’ve only seen it used that way.

If you’ve stuck with the interpretation this long, you must have very curious views on carefulness and safety 😁