There's also the fact that common methods threw exception types that were not final, and in fact overly generic. If I call a method that declares itself to throw NoSuchFileException or DirectoryNotEmptyException, I can have a pretty good idea what I might do about it. If it throws IOException without elaboration, on the other hand...
With regards to I/O, there are generally any number of weird errors you can run into, file not found, directory exists, host unreachable, permission denied, file corrupt, etc etc. Like anything file related will be able to throw any of those exceptions at almost any point in time.
I think IOException (or maybe FileSystemException) is probably the best you can do in a lot of I/O cases unless you can dedicate time to handling each of those specially (and there's often not a lot much more you can do except for saying "Access is denied" or "File not found" to the user or by logging it somewhere).
There are fatal IO errors and non-fatal. Most of us don't care about the non-fatal case, but mainframes have the concept of "file isn't available now, load tape 12345", "file is being restored from backup, try again tomorrow" - things that your code could handle (if nothing else you should inform the user that this will take a while). There is also the "read off the end of the file" exception which in some languages is the idiomatic way to tell when you have read the whole file.
But most IO errors are fatal. It doesn't matter if the filename is not found, or the controller had too many errors talking to the drive and gave up - either way your code can do nothing.
I just tested it by creating a repo with two branches without a common ancestor, and I was able to move a branch pointer to either history with update-ref, so no, I don't think so
> we don't do commissions, we just pay good salaries
The semi-joke I always heard about this was that if you don't pay commissions, you'll hire a sales team who are good at selling you that they are doing a good job, rather than selling the prodct.
Sales has to be commission based and you always hire at least two salesman.
The biggest driver to make a sale is the commission. The second biggest is fear of getting sacked because you’re not making as many sales as the other guy.
Pretty much this or something like it, at least in my experience the last 30+ years.
Sales seems to attract folks who are highly 'coin operated'. The large majority (yes...always with the exceptions) really, deep down, don't care about how cool the tech is, or how it's going to change the world...they care about the game of sales and you keep score in the game by how much commission you earn. You really want the salesthing that comes in with "Forget about the salary or draw, I want a 100% commission comp plan" because that's someone who is confident enough in their ability to sell that they aren't worried about paying the mortgage or buying groceries.
Tangentially, one of the worst things I've seen a sales org do is cap commissions. All that incentivizes is "I hit my cap...ima gonna go hang out on my boat until next quarter because why work for sales I'm not going to get comp'ed on".
GP's company is (at least in their eyes) not interested in selling per se - quoting:
>> That means the sales person as they're working is not incentivized to sell as much as possible, they're incentivized to figure out the (potential) client's needs, and how we can best meet them, irrespective of what they end up paying.
I don't know what the name for that other thing is, but it's indeed distinct from "selling" that salespeople do, which boils down to begging, cajoling, tricking or coercing you to buy their shit, no matter how useless or downright harmful to you is, because that's what commissions combined with competition incentivize. Not surprisingly, the bottom-feeder telemarketing sweatshops are where this model is present in its purest form - extreme competition, frequent bonuses for top performers, and quick firing for not being a top performer.
If I have a choice, I never want to "buy" whatever someone's "selling" - I only want to do the whatever is the "buying" equivalent for the not-selling thing I don't have the name for.
It's not a B2B-specific phenomenon either. The B2C equivalent of those salespeople are car salesmen (which have meme status at this point), telemarketers, and those people doing the Amway model, trying to sell some Tupperware knockoffs[0] or barely working vacuum cleaners or whatnot at 3-10x inflated prices, making you feel like you had a good time instead of having just been scammed.
--
[0] - Ironically, Tupperware was also sold in this model, but it at least wasn't shit.
I don't know Spanish scrabble, but I have played Finnish scrabbe - another language that relies heavily on conjugation - and it disallows all conjugated and declined forms of words, except for nominative plurals.
To tie this back to TFA, even before we knew that the Halting problem was uncomputable, we could have defined
f(n) = { 1 if there is a Turing machine with at most n states that solves the Halting problem;
0 otherwise }
and we can easily show that f(n) is computable without proving that the Halting problem is undecideable. Viz., f is either constant 0; or equal to a function of the form
g_k(n) = { 1 if n >= k;
0 if n < k },
and both the constant 0 function, and all the g_k functions, are computable; thus f is computable.
And also, the system is a direct descendant of regnal numbering, where zero wouldn’t have made sense even if invented (there is no zeroth year of Joe Biden’s term of office).
