> LTO (link time optimisation) is the hot topic for Apple’s new generation of linkers, enabling them to optimise across functions, etc.

I was using LTO in 2013 on apple machines... what exactly is new about it now?

Some more things to consider: Sugary things like marinades and rubs will stick more as they caramelize compared to just salt & spices. This is great if you're making a pan sauce, as there's more to deglaze. But I've had my pan act so non-stick in some cases that I couldn't build a fond.

Also if the surface of the food is wet, it can cool the pan a LOT on contact, as well as cause other reactions that promote sticking. This is especially true with too little oil.

Developers developers developers developers

This is beside the point. The code specifies what the product _is_, not what it "should" be. If you ask for a word processor and I deliver a perfectly bug-free and feature-complete calculator would you really believe it lived up to spec?

This is also beside the point. I think both of you are trying to warn against the dangers that lie on both sides of this coin: people can invest too heavily in a specification and waste an enormous amount of time, and people can immediately jump into coding and code something that does not do what it was intended to do. Like with all things in life, there’s a balance between these two extremes that’s correct.

You need some level of specification so you know what you’re building, but you have to keep in mind that the final code defines what the behavior truly is. Sometimes, that behavior unintentionally becomes part of the specification because users begin to rely on it.

I do like the fact that you both used hyperbole to succinctly illustrate the dangers of veering too far in either direction though :)

A (human language) specification is simply _enough_ information about a system that a human can figure out the intention of the author. The smarter and more context-rich the human, the simpler the specification can be. The dumber and less context-rich the human, the closer the specification needs to be to code.

It's asymptotic. By the time you reach a human who is as dumb as an actual computer, the specification _is_ the code.

I remember thinking the blue led on the PS2 was so cool when it first came out.

I remember, it was extremely cool! 23 years later the novelty has worn off a bit.

Right? How long was it until they figured out that one triceratops was a juvenile rather than a separate species?

Though if they still have dna from that specimen it should be pretty easy to tell

Considering the list was generated from data, not just the author's opinion, I wonder what criteria you're using for "should".

My guess is a lot more of the general population feels the same (negative) way about it, but your sample of people you've seen reacting to it is giving you selection bias, thinking more people enjoy it

not many people have seen it, these days only limited and niche people would see 2001. For that reason the stats on it would be skewed towards people who would view it more favorably.

It's a film a cinemaphile would watch today for either nostalgia or historic interest. Whatever its place in the film canon (which it richly deserves) I'm pretty sure the random theater-goer today would hate it and I wouldn't really recommend they go watch it.

Rancid isn't the same as rotten. Oil going rancid is about oxidation and other chemical degradation. This has nothing to do with "health" of the oil...

The usage of “rancid” in everyday conversation is exclusively referring to something that “went bad” in my experience.

The top definitions of the word agree, e.g.:

> having an unpleasant smell or taste usually from chemical change or decomposition

> having a rank, unpleasant, stale smell or taste, as through decomposition, especially of fats or oils

It has to do with the health effects of the oil. It radically (pun intended and yes I know that's not the only mechanism) transfoms the lipid profiles and generate compounds which for some we know may have health impact.

Do you mean that the oxidized oils will have less (or none) of the health benefits that the fresh oils would?

That's what a few studies seem to hint at. As with most food stuff studies we need time and lots of replication. And make sure that the food lobbies didn't mess up like what happened with the sugar industry.

And then risk drawing you down the rabbit hole/money sink of getting a pilot's license

Appeals to tradition and authority are not arguments. Look in the mirror for arrogance.