qid int64 1 74.7M | question stringlengths 12 33.8k | date stringlengths 10 10 | metadata list | response_j stringlengths 0 115k | response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
116,283 | I am an editor for a trade publication with 40 years of experience in journalism. The company wants me to take a job on the events side, writing content, helping with organization, moderating panels, archiving video. They haven’t called it a promotion but it would clearly be more intense work and involve traveling to conferences every other month. I’d like to accept the offer but I want to negotiate a salary increase after a six-month review. Can I do that upfront or do I wait the six months and in either case, what kind of percentage would be equitable? | 2018/07/21 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/116283",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/90496/"
] | * Inform you manager about the Verbatim copies of code from the Internet, and tell that you see a potential legal liability there
* Explicitly state in commit messages which of his commits you fixed
* Your manager listened to you once, so the next time a huge and messy commit comes which breaks something working and could have been caught by the test, you write an email to your coworker with the manager in CC stating that you need he should show you on his machine how he tested the code and how it works.
* When he submitted something which breaks and leaves during the office hours, you go to the manager shortly after he left and ask him to locate your coworker, stating that you would prefer if the coworker helps integrating the code - state that you can do it alone, but it may take more time and state which of your tasks is delayed by this.
* In case this continues, take notes over one week how much work integrating your coworkers mess has caused you, with specific incidents, go to your manager and state that you "can handle it without him" | As other recommend, I would ask somebody higher up if I could start CCing him in all your exchanges besides documenting everything in a source code system.
Obviously, if you working for the two, your colleague does not need to do it. However, it seems a bit odd he taking such a relaxed stance of missing so many hours of work and days off in the middle of an intern project...it is as he knows he cannot fail.
I would investigate if he has relatives inside. I have seen my share of pet employees over the years. It is usually not that hard to find out. Maybe you were setup together for a reason.
Welcome to the fantastic world of the real world and office politics!
Assuming no foul play, at the end of the day, someone is failing you not making regular meetings to guide you both and assess the state of the project.
PS. A possible course of action if that is a University endorsed internship is probing on the University side if you can change for another place. The odds are slim, but without asking it is not possible to find out. |
116,283 | I am an editor for a trade publication with 40 years of experience in journalism. The company wants me to take a job on the events side, writing content, helping with organization, moderating panels, archiving video. They haven’t called it a promotion but it would clearly be more intense work and involve traveling to conferences every other month. I’d like to accept the offer but I want to negotiate a salary increase after a six-month review. Can I do that upfront or do I wait the six months and in either case, what kind of percentage would be equitable? | 2018/07/21 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/116283",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/90496/"
] | You are playing well above your pay grade. Let your manager manage your colleague. An outcome like "the project got finished but wasn't great, one of the interns worked hard but the other was a nightmare" is common as dirt in this industry.
Do the tasks your manager has assigned to you. When you're out of tasks, go ask for more. When you can't do something because you're waiting on the colleague, let your manager know. When you get something from your colleague and it's unusably bad, ask your manager whether you should fix it up, or bounce it back explaining why you can't use it. Then ask what you should do next given that you can't do what you were planning to do (use the thing from the colleague.)
You seem to think that if you can't fix this other intern (or arrange for a firing) it will reflect poorly on you. Do you really think your manager is so terrible as not to see what you see? You've reported it, shown the code, the manager has already started dealing out tasks and telling the other intern to use source control, and so on. This is all the manager's job, not yours. Relax and do yours, keep your manager informed, and let the manager manage. | Since you are using a versioning system: Fix one bug in his code and check the fix into the versioning system. Then fix another bug and check the fix into the versioning system. And so on. So when you need evidence you point your boss to the versioning system, which contains your name 99 times and his name once.
(In a professional environment with experienced developers you use a source code control system in a different way).
And consider that many companies use an internship as a very, very long interview. If that is the case in your company, then by the sounds of it you are passing the interview, and your colleague is not. |
116,283 | I am an editor for a trade publication with 40 years of experience in journalism. The company wants me to take a job on the events side, writing content, helping with organization, moderating panels, archiving video. They haven’t called it a promotion but it would clearly be more intense work and involve traveling to conferences every other month. I’d like to accept the offer but I want to negotiate a salary increase after a six-month review. Can I do that upfront or do I wait the six months and in either case, what kind of percentage would be equitable? | 2018/07/21 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/116283",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/90496/"
] | You are playing well above your pay grade. Let your manager manage your colleague. An outcome like "the project got finished but wasn't great, one of the interns worked hard but the other was a nightmare" is common as dirt in this industry.
Do the tasks your manager has assigned to you. When you're out of tasks, go ask for more. When you can't do something because you're waiting on the colleague, let your manager know. When you get something from your colleague and it's unusably bad, ask your manager whether you should fix it up, or bounce it back explaining why you can't use it. Then ask what you should do next given that you can't do what you were planning to do (use the thing from the colleague.)
You seem to think that if you can't fix this other intern (or arrange for a firing) it will reflect poorly on you. Do you really think your manager is so terrible as not to see what you see? You've reported it, shown the code, the manager has already started dealing out tasks and telling the other intern to use source control, and so on. This is all the manager's job, not yours. Relax and do yours, keep your manager informed, and let the manager manage. | As other recommend, I would ask somebody higher up if I could start CCing him in all your exchanges besides documenting everything in a source code system.
Obviously, if you working for the two, your colleague does not need to do it. However, it seems a bit odd he taking such a relaxed stance of missing so many hours of work and days off in the middle of an intern project...it is as he knows he cannot fail.
I would investigate if he has relatives inside. I have seen my share of pet employees over the years. It is usually not that hard to find out. Maybe you were setup together for a reason.
Welcome to the fantastic world of the real world and office politics!
Assuming no foul play, at the end of the day, someone is failing you not making regular meetings to guide you both and assess the state of the project.
PS. A possible course of action if that is a University endorsed internship is probing on the University side if you can change for another place. The odds are slim, but without asking it is not possible to find out. |
116,283 | I am an editor for a trade publication with 40 years of experience in journalism. The company wants me to take a job on the events side, writing content, helping with organization, moderating panels, archiving video. They haven’t called it a promotion but it would clearly be more intense work and involve traveling to conferences every other month. I’d like to accept the offer but I want to negotiate a salary increase after a six-month review. Can I do that upfront or do I wait the six months and in either case, what kind of percentage would be equitable? | 2018/07/21 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/116283",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/90496/"
] | Since you are using a versioning system: Fix one bug in his code and check the fix into the versioning system. Then fix another bug and check the fix into the versioning system. And so on. So when you need evidence you point your boss to the versioning system, which contains your name 99 times and his name once.
(In a professional environment with experienced developers you use a source code control system in a different way).
And consider that many companies use an internship as a very, very long interview. If that is the case in your company, then by the sounds of it you are passing the interview, and your colleague is not. | As other recommend, I would ask somebody higher up if I could start CCing him in all your exchanges besides documenting everything in a source code system.
Obviously, if you working for the two, your colleague does not need to do it. However, it seems a bit odd he taking such a relaxed stance of missing so many hours of work and days off in the middle of an intern project...it is as he knows he cannot fail.
I would investigate if he has relatives inside. I have seen my share of pet employees over the years. It is usually not that hard to find out. Maybe you were setup together for a reason.
Welcome to the fantastic world of the real world and office politics!
Assuming no foul play, at the end of the day, someone is failing you not making regular meetings to guide you both and assess the state of the project.
PS. A possible course of action if that is a University endorsed internship is probing on the University side if you can change for another place. The odds are slim, but without asking it is not possible to find out. |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | An alternative would be to show clearly that particular answers were written **before** the original question was edited, for example:
>
> This answer is for a previous version of this question. *Click here* to
> notify the user if their answer is no longer relevant.
>
>
>
Another option is to display an alert to the downvoter when downvoting an out of date answer.
I think the majority of SO users would be glad to edit their answers if they're no longer relevant to an edited question, but without notification it's extremely difficult to check before getting downvoted. | This seems like a highly requested feature, and still doesn't have enough ROI.
**Why?**
1. **We like notification, not spam**. which one of those two is more likely to happen? well it depends on the quality of the feature. Users with thousands of posts may have to either spend a lot of time to manage subscriptions, or just get spam.
2. **Users should "play" fair** - changing a major thing in your post after you got upvoted answers can be rude. You can never avoid users from "abusing" a system.
3. **The core functionality is mostly achieved through other activities** i.e by the first down vote or comment.
it's clear that it's not fair, and the down voter may never return to change his vote regardless of what you do. if it's a highly ranked post, most chances that you will be know that there was a change quick enough. |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | An alternative would be to show clearly that particular answers were written **before** the original question was edited, for example:
>
> This answer is for a previous version of this question. *Click here* to
> notify the user if their answer is no longer relevant.
>
>
>
Another option is to display an alert to the downvoter when downvoting an out of date answer.
I think the majority of SO users would be glad to edit their answers if they're no longer relevant to an edited question, but without notification it's extremely difficult to check before getting downvoted. | Simply sending everyone a reminder each time a question is updated, will be a cure that is worse than the original problem. Most of the time I answer a question, it gets edited later (often several times). And of these edits, 9 out of 10 will not invalidate the existing answers.
All in all I agree that it is annoying to see your answer being invalidated from time to time, but receiving tons of notifications over words put between `backticks` would be more annoying for me.
Hence I suggest we don't simply send notifications when the question is updated, but either do something more advanced, or don't do anything at all. Here are two options I could think of:
1. **Major edit indication**: Next to the edit summary, make a checkbox indicating a 'Major Edit', the reversed of what they have in wikipedia. When a major edit is made, the relevant users get a notification.
2. **Targeted advice**: Try to detect whether an edit is likely to require different answers. If this is detected, briefly show text to the user with the hint to notify those whose answer is now outdated. |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | I've had similar [experiences to Cletus](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322/notify-us-when-the-question-has-been-edited-after-posting-an-answer/2324#2324) where the answer I posted was the first and correct, but over time the question changes and all of a sudden you can get hammered because you were unable to keep up with the changing requirements of the question. This can definitely get very annoying.
This would also be incredible useful for those of us who monitor questions to close. If this was combined with the ability to remove a close vote, it could allow us to vote a question to close when it doesn't meet standards, and when it is revised, we would get notified and be able to then remove our close vote if we felt it was an improvement. | I currently have a large number of posts bookmarked so I can monitor them. In each case, I have posted an answer based on what I thought the OP wanted. However, the question was interpreted differently by other posters.
Of course, I could have waited for the OP to clarify the question before answering. However, I have found that I have a high rate of success correctly interpreting the original meaning. And I may not be around when, if ever, the question is clarified.
I used to star them and use the favorites tab to monitor them, but I really don't want these cluttering up my *real* favorites. Using browser bookmarks means I have to manually follow up which is a pain.
Having the ability to subscribe to posts is probably redundant since that is effectively what favorites is, but I'd really like to have some mechanism to monitor activity on questions I've answered (without having to star them).
**Possible Solution**
Maybe the answer tab could work similar to the favorites tab so that the tab and individual answers get highlighted when there is new activity on the question. I don't think notification of favorites activity goes to the inbox so it wouldn't be *spam*.
**Another Possible Solution**
Add the ability to categorize favorites. There is [a feature request](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75944/favorites-improvements) that suggests several improvements to favorites. One could use favorites to receive notification on any question and then use personal tags to keep those favorites organized. I think this solution would *kill two requests with one feature*. |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | An alternative would be to show clearly that particular answers were written **before** the original question was edited, for example:
>
> This answer is for a previous version of this question. *Click here* to
> notify the user if their answer is no longer relevant.
>
>
>
Another option is to display an alert to the downvoter when downvoting an out of date answer.
I think the majority of SO users would be glad to edit their answers if they're no longer relevant to an edited question, but without notification it's extremely difficult to check before getting downvoted. | Wrong solution because you are trying to address the wrong problem.
Changing the question out from under good answers is simply **rude** and should be discouraged. I wrote an [expansive version of this argument](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49821/when-editing-the-question-option-to-notify-all-answer-authors/49831#49831) on [a later question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49821/when-editing-the-question-option-to-notify-all-answer-authors). |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | This is a good suggestion. I've been downvoted before simply because the question was edited changing the validity of my answer. Most people tend to realize this is whats happened but some don't. It would be good if there were such a notification so you could modify or delete your answer, as appropriate. | I've had similar [experiences to Cletus](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322/notify-us-when-the-question-has-been-edited-after-posting-an-answer/2324#2324) where the answer I posted was the first and correct, but over time the question changes and all of a sudden you can get hammered because you were unable to keep up with the changing requirements of the question. This can definitely get very annoying.
This would also be incredible useful for those of us who monitor questions to close. If this was combined with the ability to remove a close vote, it could allow us to vote a question to close when it doesn't meet standards, and when it is revised, we would get notified and be able to then remove our close vote if we felt it was an improvement. |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | An alternative would be to show clearly that particular answers were written **before** the original question was edited, for example:
>
> This answer is for a previous version of this question. *Click here* to
> notify the user if their answer is no longer relevant.
>
>
>
Another option is to display an alert to the downvoter when downvoting an out of date answer.
I think the majority of SO users would be glad to edit their answers if they're no longer relevant to an edited question, but without notification it's extremely difficult to check before getting downvoted. | I currently have a large number of posts bookmarked so I can monitor them. In each case, I have posted an answer based on what I thought the OP wanted. However, the question was interpreted differently by other posters.
Of course, I could have waited for the OP to clarify the question before answering. However, I have found that I have a high rate of success correctly interpreting the original meaning. And I may not be around when, if ever, the question is clarified.
I used to star them and use the favorites tab to monitor them, but I really don't want these cluttering up my *real* favorites. Using browser bookmarks means I have to manually follow up which is a pain.
Having the ability to subscribe to posts is probably redundant since that is effectively what favorites is, but I'd really like to have some mechanism to monitor activity on questions I've answered (without having to star them).
**Possible Solution**
Maybe the answer tab could work similar to the favorites tab so that the tab and individual answers get highlighted when there is new activity on the question. I don't think notification of favorites activity goes to the inbox so it wouldn't be *spam*.
**Another Possible Solution**
Add the ability to categorize favorites. There is [a feature request](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75944/favorites-improvements) that suggests several improvements to favorites. One could use favorites to receive notification on any question and then use personal tags to keep those favorites organized. I think this solution would *kill two requests with one feature*. |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | I've had similar [experiences to Cletus](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322/notify-us-when-the-question-has-been-edited-after-posting-an-answer/2324#2324) where the answer I posted was the first and correct, but over time the question changes and all of a sudden you can get hammered because you were unable to keep up with the changing requirements of the question. This can definitely get very annoying.
This would also be incredible useful for those of us who monitor questions to close. If this was combined with the ability to remove a close vote, it could allow us to vote a question to close when it doesn't meet standards, and when it is revised, we would get notified and be able to then remove our close vote if we felt it was an improvement. | This seems like a highly requested feature, and still doesn't have enough ROI.
**Why?**
1. **We like notification, not spam**. which one of those two is more likely to happen? well it depends on the quality of the feature. Users with thousands of posts may have to either spend a lot of time to manage subscriptions, or just get spam.
2. **Users should "play" fair** - changing a major thing in your post after you got upvoted answers can be rude. You can never avoid users from "abusing" a system.
3. **The core functionality is mostly achieved through other activities** i.e by the first down vote or comment.
it's clear that it's not fair, and the down voter may never return to change his vote regardless of what you do. if it's a highly ranked post, most chances that you will be know that there was a change quick enough. |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | Wrong solution because you are trying to address the wrong problem.
Changing the question out from under good answers is simply **rude** and should be discouraged. I wrote an [expansive version of this argument](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49821/when-editing-the-question-option-to-notify-all-answer-authors/49831#49831) on [a later question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49821/when-editing-the-question-option-to-notify-all-answer-authors). | This seems like a highly requested feature, and still doesn't have enough ROI.
**Why?**
1. **We like notification, not spam**. which one of those two is more likely to happen? well it depends on the quality of the feature. Users with thousands of posts may have to either spend a lot of time to manage subscriptions, or just get spam.
2. **Users should "play" fair** - changing a major thing in your post after you got upvoted answers can be rude. You can never avoid users from "abusing" a system.
3. **The core functionality is mostly achieved through other activities** i.e by the first down vote or comment.
it's clear that it's not fair, and the down voter may never return to change his vote regardless of what you do. if it's a highly ranked post, most chances that you will be know that there was a change quick enough. |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | An alternative would be to show clearly that particular answers were written **before** the original question was edited, for example:
>
> This answer is for a previous version of this question. *Click here* to
> notify the user if their answer is no longer relevant.
>
>
>
Another option is to display an alert to the downvoter when downvoting an out of date answer.
I think the majority of SO users would be glad to edit their answers if they're no longer relevant to an edited question, but without notification it's extremely difficult to check before getting downvoted. | We are not going to implement automatic notifications on edits after you post an answer. If you would like to opt-in to notifications for this, please use the [follow post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/345661/51) feature. |
2,322 | Consider this situation. I post a legitimate and correct answer to a question and receive a few upvotes. Then the OP realizes that's not what they wanted to ask, and significantly rewrites the question, rendering my answer irrelevant and useless. Ideally the OP would comment on every answer saying "check my edit" but *some people don't know to do that*.
This leaves two possibly bad situations:
1. I never know, the answer stays, and the votes don't reflect the usefulness of the answer anymore.
2. All of a sudden I get an influx of downvotes because my answer isn't helpful anymore. *If I'm checking and notice my rep has dropped*, I come back after the fact, edit the answer, and bring it back to the original quality. This is great, but 9 times out of 10, the downvoters never come back and notice the answer has been edited. It might get more upvotes, but it still doesn't reflect the true value of the answer.
If we can get notified when the OP gets edited, we can nip it in the bud and go back to edit our answers to match - thus maintaining the quality of the answers on SO. | 2009/07/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/44853/"
] | This is a good suggestion. I've been downvoted before simply because the question was edited changing the validity of my answer. Most people tend to realize this is whats happened but some don't. It would be good if there were such a notification so you could modify or delete your answer, as appropriate. | We are not going to implement automatic notifications on edits after you post an answer. If you would like to opt-in to notifications for this, please use the [follow post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/345661/51) feature. |
14,334 | In the anime *Hunter x Hunter*, Alluka Zoldyck is considered as a girl by Killua, shown when they leave their estate and were accompanied by four butlers. Killua shouted to Gotoh and said that he needs a female butler to join them because Alluka is a girl.
However, I am confused because Milluki address Alluka as a brother, in the episode when he wished to Nanika to kill the tourist photographer. He clearly told the the tourist that he was just taking his brothers for a walk. In addition, the [Hunter Wiki](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck) acknowledged Alluka as a male.
What is Alluka's actual gender? | 2014/10/08 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/14334",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/2309/"
] | Actually, the *Hunter x Hunter* wiki [addresses this](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck#Gender_confusion), and is quite accurate in its assessment, though the references cite the wrong volumes (but correct chapters).
>
> There is considerable confusion about Alluka's gender. Two of Alluka's brothers, Illumi and Milluki, refer to Alluka as their brother. But Killua, the closest brother of Alluka, specifically states that Alluka is a "girl" and refers to Alluka as his sister multiple times. This inconsistency can be explained by Killua's intimate and understanding bond with Alluka, hence he would know and care that Alluka is mentally female, versus Illumi's cold and dehumanizing attitude towards Alluka. **While Alluka is most likely biologically male, Killua's interactions show that Alluka's psyche may be female.**
>
>
>
Everyone (except Killua) addresses Alluka by her biological gender, which appears to be male. While she is quite small, she shows no female development.
However, she is very sensitive, gentle, and reserved, and has a very feminine side. Being that Killua is the only one who dares to actually interact with Alluka as a person, he would be the best one to understand that she probably is more feminine inside.
This does seem a bit odd to me; even if someone I knew were closer to "she" in his head, unless they specifically asked, I'd probably still say "he". But perhaps either Alluka did ask this of Killua, or Killua just took it upon himself because he knew Alluka so well.
Unfortunately, since it's never explicitly stated, this is somewhat assumption, but realistically it's the only explanation that makes sense since Killua is the only one to refer to Alluka as female. | He is physically a male, and mentally female. It is the reason why Killua referred to him as "she". This is stated in the databooks and also by the canon writers. So in other words, Alluka is transgendered. Though, I believe people have the right to think of him as whatever they like, male or female. |
14,334 | In the anime *Hunter x Hunter*, Alluka Zoldyck is considered as a girl by Killua, shown when they leave their estate and were accompanied by four butlers. Killua shouted to Gotoh and said that he needs a female butler to join them because Alluka is a girl.
However, I am confused because Milluki address Alluka as a brother, in the episode when he wished to Nanika to kill the tourist photographer. He clearly told the the tourist that he was just taking his brothers for a walk. In addition, the [Hunter Wiki](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck) acknowledged Alluka as a male.
What is Alluka's actual gender? | 2014/10/08 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/14334",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/2309/"
] | Actually, the *Hunter x Hunter* wiki [addresses this](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck#Gender_confusion), and is quite accurate in its assessment, though the references cite the wrong volumes (but correct chapters).
>
> There is considerable confusion about Alluka's gender. Two of Alluka's brothers, Illumi and Milluki, refer to Alluka as their brother. But Killua, the closest brother of Alluka, specifically states that Alluka is a "girl" and refers to Alluka as his sister multiple times. This inconsistency can be explained by Killua's intimate and understanding bond with Alluka, hence he would know and care that Alluka is mentally female, versus Illumi's cold and dehumanizing attitude towards Alluka. **While Alluka is most likely biologically male, Killua's interactions show that Alluka's psyche may be female.**
>
>
>
Everyone (except Killua) addresses Alluka by her biological gender, which appears to be male. While she is quite small, she shows no female development.
However, she is very sensitive, gentle, and reserved, and has a very feminine side. Being that Killua is the only one who dares to actually interact with Alluka as a person, he would be the best one to understand that she probably is more feminine inside.
This does seem a bit odd to me; even if someone I knew were closer to "she" in his head, unless they specifically asked, I'd probably still say "he". But perhaps either Alluka did ask this of Killua, or Killua just took it upon himself because he knew Alluka so well.
Unfortunately, since it's never explicitly stated, this is somewhat assumption, but realistically it's the only explanation that makes sense since Killua is the only one to refer to Alluka as female. | Alluka is male. He just dresses like a girl.
From [Alluka](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck#Gender_Ambiguity) article on Hunter x Hunter Wiki (emphasis mine):
>
> There is conflicting information regarding Alluka's gender.
>
>
> **The official data book lists Alluka's gender as male**, and two of Alluka's brothers, Illumi and Milluki, refer to Alluka as their brother.
>
>
> However, Killua, the person closest to Alluka, specifically states that Alluka is a girl and refers to Alluka as his sister multiple times. While Alluka may have been designated male at birth, Killua's interactions show that Alluka may identify as female.
>
>
> This inconsistency may be due to Killua's intimate and understanding bond with Alluka, hence he would know and care that Alluka identifies as female, versus Illumi and Milluki's cold and dehumanizing attitude toward Alluka.
>
>
>
In the episode showing Alluka in his childhood, we can see that he used to dress like a boy. He ended up looking like a girl, because he played with doll too much that his parent decided to dress him up like a girl. |
14,334 | In the anime *Hunter x Hunter*, Alluka Zoldyck is considered as a girl by Killua, shown when they leave their estate and were accompanied by four butlers. Killua shouted to Gotoh and said that he needs a female butler to join them because Alluka is a girl.
However, I am confused because Milluki address Alluka as a brother, in the episode when he wished to Nanika to kill the tourist photographer. He clearly told the the tourist that he was just taking his brothers for a walk. In addition, the [Hunter Wiki](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck) acknowledged Alluka as a male.
What is Alluka's actual gender? | 2014/10/08 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/14334",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/2309/"
] | Actually, the *Hunter x Hunter* wiki [addresses this](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck#Gender_confusion), and is quite accurate in its assessment, though the references cite the wrong volumes (but correct chapters).
>
> There is considerable confusion about Alluka's gender. Two of Alluka's brothers, Illumi and Milluki, refer to Alluka as their brother. But Killua, the closest brother of Alluka, specifically states that Alluka is a "girl" and refers to Alluka as his sister multiple times. This inconsistency can be explained by Killua's intimate and understanding bond with Alluka, hence he would know and care that Alluka is mentally female, versus Illumi's cold and dehumanizing attitude towards Alluka. **While Alluka is most likely biologically male, Killua's interactions show that Alluka's psyche may be female.**
>
>
>
Everyone (except Killua) addresses Alluka by her biological gender, which appears to be male. While she is quite small, she shows no female development.
However, she is very sensitive, gentle, and reserved, and has a very feminine side. Being that Killua is the only one who dares to actually interact with Alluka as a person, he would be the best one to understand that she probably is more feminine inside.
This does seem a bit odd to me; even if someone I knew were closer to "she" in his head, unless they specifically asked, I'd probably still say "he". But perhaps either Alluka did ask this of Killua, or Killua just took it upon himself because he knew Alluka so well.
Unfortunately, since it's never explicitly stated, this is somewhat assumption, but realistically it's the only explanation that makes sense since Killua is the only one to refer to Alluka as female. | I've always played with two theories:
1. It could be the case that the family refer to Alluka as male to distance themselves from her, denying the fact that she's female to dehumanize her, or to further disassociate her from the family in some way.
2. Or it could very well be that, as Alluka's exact origin is unknown, she isn't strictly human and doesn't possess what we would call a conventional gender, but rather, her gender is simply non-existent, like a Nen beast.
Personally, I favor the latter, or a mix of the two. These are all just speculation, of course, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless. |
14,334 | In the anime *Hunter x Hunter*, Alluka Zoldyck is considered as a girl by Killua, shown when they leave their estate and were accompanied by four butlers. Killua shouted to Gotoh and said that he needs a female butler to join them because Alluka is a girl.
However, I am confused because Milluki address Alluka as a brother, in the episode when he wished to Nanika to kill the tourist photographer. He clearly told the the tourist that he was just taking his brothers for a walk. In addition, the [Hunter Wiki](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck) acknowledged Alluka as a male.
What is Alluka's actual gender? | 2014/10/08 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/14334",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/2309/"
] | Actually, the *Hunter x Hunter* wiki [addresses this](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck#Gender_confusion), and is quite accurate in its assessment, though the references cite the wrong volumes (but correct chapters).
>
> There is considerable confusion about Alluka's gender. Two of Alluka's brothers, Illumi and Milluki, refer to Alluka as their brother. But Killua, the closest brother of Alluka, specifically states that Alluka is a "girl" and refers to Alluka as his sister multiple times. This inconsistency can be explained by Killua's intimate and understanding bond with Alluka, hence he would know and care that Alluka is mentally female, versus Illumi's cold and dehumanizing attitude towards Alluka. **While Alluka is most likely biologically male, Killua's interactions show that Alluka's psyche may be female.**
>
>
>
Everyone (except Killua) addresses Alluka by her biological gender, which appears to be male. While she is quite small, she shows no female development.
However, she is very sensitive, gentle, and reserved, and has a very feminine side. Being that Killua is the only one who dares to actually interact with Alluka as a person, he would be the best one to understand that she probably is more feminine inside.
This does seem a bit odd to me; even if someone I knew were closer to "she" in his head, unless they specifically asked, I'd probably still say "he". But perhaps either Alluka did ask this of Killua, or Killua just took it upon himself because he knew Alluka so well.
Unfortunately, since it's never explicitly stated, this is somewhat assumption, but realistically it's the only explanation that makes sense since Killua is the only one to refer to Alluka as female. | Here is my assumption: When Alluka was born, her mother didn't take care of her, she let the butlers to take care of her (like bathing her, etc), and because their mother always thought that all her children must be male, so she thinks that Alluka is male too, especially because she is cold to her and never bathe her, so she doesn't know that Alluka is actually female, and the butlers are too afraid to tell their mother that Alluka is female. While Killua is the one who really cares for her, and knows her the most.
So even thought in the birth-biodata and everywhere, Alluka is stated as a male, but Killua knows the truth, and so the butlers who ever took Alluka to bath also have known that.
It's just my hypothesis after watching the anime. I think if this hypothesis is true, this story will be a very nice scene, because then it will be stated that "Even the writer of the story doesn't know about Alluka's gender, but her brother knows it because of how he always set an eye on her." |
14,334 | In the anime *Hunter x Hunter*, Alluka Zoldyck is considered as a girl by Killua, shown when they leave their estate and were accompanied by four butlers. Killua shouted to Gotoh and said that he needs a female butler to join them because Alluka is a girl.
However, I am confused because Milluki address Alluka as a brother, in the episode when he wished to Nanika to kill the tourist photographer. He clearly told the the tourist that he was just taking his brothers for a walk. In addition, the [Hunter Wiki](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck) acknowledged Alluka as a male.
What is Alluka's actual gender? | 2014/10/08 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/14334",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/2309/"
] | Alluka is male. He just dresses like a girl.
From [Alluka](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck#Gender_Ambiguity) article on Hunter x Hunter Wiki (emphasis mine):
>
> There is conflicting information regarding Alluka's gender.
>
>
> **The official data book lists Alluka's gender as male**, and two of Alluka's brothers, Illumi and Milluki, refer to Alluka as their brother.
>
>
> However, Killua, the person closest to Alluka, specifically states that Alluka is a girl and refers to Alluka as his sister multiple times. While Alluka may have been designated male at birth, Killua's interactions show that Alluka may identify as female.
>
>
> This inconsistency may be due to Killua's intimate and understanding bond with Alluka, hence he would know and care that Alluka identifies as female, versus Illumi and Milluki's cold and dehumanizing attitude toward Alluka.
>
>
>
In the episode showing Alluka in his childhood, we can see that he used to dress like a boy. He ended up looking like a girl, because he played with doll too much that his parent decided to dress him up like a girl. | He is physically a male, and mentally female. It is the reason why Killua referred to him as "she". This is stated in the databooks and also by the canon writers. So in other words, Alluka is transgendered. Though, I believe people have the right to think of him as whatever they like, male or female. |
14,334 | In the anime *Hunter x Hunter*, Alluka Zoldyck is considered as a girl by Killua, shown when they leave their estate and were accompanied by four butlers. Killua shouted to Gotoh and said that he needs a female butler to join them because Alluka is a girl.
However, I am confused because Milluki address Alluka as a brother, in the episode when he wished to Nanika to kill the tourist photographer. He clearly told the the tourist that he was just taking his brothers for a walk. In addition, the [Hunter Wiki](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck) acknowledged Alluka as a male.
What is Alluka's actual gender? | 2014/10/08 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/14334",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/2309/"
] | I've always played with two theories:
1. It could be the case that the family refer to Alluka as male to distance themselves from her, denying the fact that she's female to dehumanize her, or to further disassociate her from the family in some way.
2. Or it could very well be that, as Alluka's exact origin is unknown, she isn't strictly human and doesn't possess what we would call a conventional gender, but rather, her gender is simply non-existent, like a Nen beast.
Personally, I favor the latter, or a mix of the two. These are all just speculation, of course, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless. | He is physically a male, and mentally female. It is the reason why Killua referred to him as "she". This is stated in the databooks and also by the canon writers. So in other words, Alluka is transgendered. Though, I believe people have the right to think of him as whatever they like, male or female. |
14,334 | In the anime *Hunter x Hunter*, Alluka Zoldyck is considered as a girl by Killua, shown when they leave their estate and were accompanied by four butlers. Killua shouted to Gotoh and said that he needs a female butler to join them because Alluka is a girl.
However, I am confused because Milluki address Alluka as a brother, in the episode when he wished to Nanika to kill the tourist photographer. He clearly told the the tourist that he was just taking his brothers for a walk. In addition, the [Hunter Wiki](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck) acknowledged Alluka as a male.
What is Alluka's actual gender? | 2014/10/08 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/14334",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/2309/"
] | Alluka is male. He just dresses like a girl.
From [Alluka](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck#Gender_Ambiguity) article on Hunter x Hunter Wiki (emphasis mine):
>
> There is conflicting information regarding Alluka's gender.
>
>
> **The official data book lists Alluka's gender as male**, and two of Alluka's brothers, Illumi and Milluki, refer to Alluka as their brother.
>
>
> However, Killua, the person closest to Alluka, specifically states that Alluka is a girl and refers to Alluka as his sister multiple times. While Alluka may have been designated male at birth, Killua's interactions show that Alluka may identify as female.
>
>
> This inconsistency may be due to Killua's intimate and understanding bond with Alluka, hence he would know and care that Alluka identifies as female, versus Illumi and Milluki's cold and dehumanizing attitude toward Alluka.
>
>
>
In the episode showing Alluka in his childhood, we can see that he used to dress like a boy. He ended up looking like a girl, because he played with doll too much that his parent decided to dress him up like a girl. | Here is my assumption: When Alluka was born, her mother didn't take care of her, she let the butlers to take care of her (like bathing her, etc), and because their mother always thought that all her children must be male, so she thinks that Alluka is male too, especially because she is cold to her and never bathe her, so she doesn't know that Alluka is actually female, and the butlers are too afraid to tell their mother that Alluka is female. While Killua is the one who really cares for her, and knows her the most.
So even thought in the birth-biodata and everywhere, Alluka is stated as a male, but Killua knows the truth, and so the butlers who ever took Alluka to bath also have known that.
It's just my hypothesis after watching the anime. I think if this hypothesis is true, this story will be a very nice scene, because then it will be stated that "Even the writer of the story doesn't know about Alluka's gender, but her brother knows it because of how he always set an eye on her." |
14,334 | In the anime *Hunter x Hunter*, Alluka Zoldyck is considered as a girl by Killua, shown when they leave their estate and were accompanied by four butlers. Killua shouted to Gotoh and said that he needs a female butler to join them because Alluka is a girl.
However, I am confused because Milluki address Alluka as a brother, in the episode when he wished to Nanika to kill the tourist photographer. He clearly told the the tourist that he was just taking his brothers for a walk. In addition, the [Hunter Wiki](http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Alluka_Zoldyck) acknowledged Alluka as a male.
What is Alluka's actual gender? | 2014/10/08 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/14334",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/2309/"
] | I've always played with two theories:
1. It could be the case that the family refer to Alluka as male to distance themselves from her, denying the fact that she's female to dehumanize her, or to further disassociate her from the family in some way.
2. Or it could very well be that, as Alluka's exact origin is unknown, she isn't strictly human and doesn't possess what we would call a conventional gender, but rather, her gender is simply non-existent, like a Nen beast.
Personally, I favor the latter, or a mix of the two. These are all just speculation, of course, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless. | Here is my assumption: When Alluka was born, her mother didn't take care of her, she let the butlers to take care of her (like bathing her, etc), and because their mother always thought that all her children must be male, so she thinks that Alluka is male too, especially because she is cold to her and never bathe her, so she doesn't know that Alluka is actually female, and the butlers are too afraid to tell their mother that Alluka is female. While Killua is the one who really cares for her, and knows her the most.
So even thought in the birth-biodata and everywhere, Alluka is stated as a male, but Killua knows the truth, and so the butlers who ever took Alluka to bath also have known that.
It's just my hypothesis after watching the anime. I think if this hypothesis is true, this story will be a very nice scene, because then it will be stated that "Even the writer of the story doesn't know about Alluka's gender, but her brother knows it because of how he always set an eye on her." |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | From my experience, beginning players (who start from not knowing how to read music at all) will play hands separately and then put them together. After you've gotten over some of the initial difficulty of just reading the music, I believe it's encouraged universally to learn/practice both at once. Of course, you can play separately to suss out some details, but on the whole, both hands should be played together. The faster you get used to playing and reading both lines-- difficult at first-- the better you will be equipped to handle more pieces that come your way. There is only a very tiny amount of piano works that are written for one hand, so really, it's in your best interest to just dive in.
The happy medium, in my opinion, is a 90-10 split. You start out playing with both hands (and pedal, don't forget those feet!). Then from playing, you figure out what you need to work on and separate as needed. This should mostly be from the technical standpoint, because to work on the overall interpretation, you really need all the parts together and playing each part individually isn't really going to help you much in the long run. I suppose, if you were working on a piece that was in the outer reaches of your technique, the split might become more even, but even then I don't think it should reach more than 60-40.
I'm originally a pianist, and then I got to the carillon, where similar to the organ, your feet move around a lot. It was hard for me learning an extra "line" (my feet), and it was always tempting to just practice the feet separately because it was so difficult for me and it slowed down my playing greatly. However, you move differently depending on what your hands AND feet are doing, so I became resigned to the fact that yes, no matter how excruciating, I need to play everything at once (and I do, so I'm intermediate sight-reader now). It's okay to play one at first to figure out what the melody is doing and what things you should emphasize, and just figure out the overall placement, but again, the piece is most improved when you play the entire piece, no matter how slowly at first, with all its parts and trappings. | There are some beginning piano books that help one get the hang of integrating the two hands. Here's what a piece in such a book might look like:
A melody is presented that straddles middle C. (The hands are in the basic position where both thumbs play middle C.) As the melody goes above middle C, the right hand becomes active, but the left hand stays in position, at the ready. Within a couple of bars, the melody passes to the left hand, while the right hand rests.
There are other ways for the two hands to take turns, that was just an example.
As you progress with this approach, things will get gradually more complex.
I don't think you need to confine yourself to working with a book of this type, but it can be helpful to work with such a book alongside whatever other material you're working with. It's a relatively painless way to get both hands working together towards a common cause.
You can find books that take this approach by browsing through the beginning piano books in a music shop. |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | When I first started learning piano I also used to practice one hand at a time. I think it is important because then in the end it's all about coordination and if you want your hands to be well coordinated you first need each hand to know what it has to do.
Putting it all together is then a completely different story, you'll have to focus on the coordination and not on the single hand anymore plus you'll have to read 2 staff at a time (which might be tricky for someone which is not used to that), but indeed the practice that you gained playing with separate hands will help.
With experience and practice you'll do that more quickly and start putting it all together soon, however I still give a shot at each hand separately, I think it helps a lot. Of course with increasing difficulty of the piece you want to play you'll spend much more time practicing with two hands together. At times you'll have to focus on a small amount of bars when you'll have some difficult phrase (and then there are many ways which might help studying a single piece depending on the technique involved), which is also recommended when there are some particularly difficult parts in the piece (but I think this applies to the viola as well). | I cannot gauge your piano level very well, but if you are having difficulties playing both hands at the same time, then the piece is may be too difficult for your level.
For piano players that are beyond the elementary level, I believe most players usually start learning the song both hands at the same time. This does help you get to learn the timing of the right and left hand right from the get go, instead of having to piece them together later on. Learning each separately and then piecing together later may actually be slower (depends on the piece) because of complex interweaving melodies, etc...
However, the practice is often done separately as needed. My piano teacher used to say if you cannot play the one hand alone, you definitely cannot play it properly with two hands. When practicing one-handedly, it will often reveal mistakes that you don't really notice while playing with two hands.
For elementary players, (at least from my experience), usually the learning process is just:
* right handed songs;
* primarily right handed songs with some added notes on the bass clef
* more difficult songs with a more involved bass line for the left hand
That's why as I said earlier, perhaps if you are having difficulties of left and right handed songs, then maybe you are playing songs with a bass line that is too difficult at the moment for you.
One thing you can do to improve independent motor control with your hands is practice your left and right brain. The left brain controls the right hand and right brain for left hand. One exercise I was taught is to try rubbing your right hand on your thigh in a forward and backward motion (relative to a sitting position), and with your left hand do a upward and downward motion in a fist. Switch it up to have right hand as a fist, and left hand doing the rubbing. I know it sounds and looks retarded, but some people actually have difficulty because it involves independent directional motion. |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | It's very normal to have issues playing with both hands at first, but if you're finding yourself completely unable to do so at all, then maybe you're attempting to play music that's too hard for you. This is a common problem for people that have significant experience on one instrument and then start another. It feels embarrassing to go all the way back to basics and play stuff that you feel like is meant for 5-year-olds, but it really has to be done. You're gonna play some Mary Had A Little Lamb, with the melody in the right hand, and single whole notes in the left. There are some method books out there that have slightly more dignified music, if that helps.
Some struggle is good (it's the only way to grow), but hitting a wall isn't productive. | That depends on the piece sometimes. My old teacher used to say practice one separately until you've got it down then "see" them together. Honestly, I'd recommend practicing one measure at a time by repeating one until you've got it and then move on. Lastly, play from the beginning after a few measures to smooth over any rough spots :) |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | When I was taking piano lessons I learned each piece three times: Once with the right hand, once with the left hand, and the third time putting both together. After a while, the third "learning" came a lot more quickly, and after a few years I would start to slowly sight read both parts together.
Today I will still practice the hard pieces one handed from time to time, especially when the timing is really disconnected between the two hands and I need at least one to go on automatic pilot. There are some pieces (*Leyenda* by Albeniz comes to mind) where the two parts are so intertwined it never makes sense to try to learn them alone. Usually that's clear from the beginning when it's the case. | From my experience, beginning players (who start from not knowing how to read music at all) will play hands separately and then put them together. After you've gotten over some of the initial difficulty of just reading the music, I believe it's encouraged universally to learn/practice both at once. Of course, you can play separately to suss out some details, but on the whole, both hands should be played together. The faster you get used to playing and reading both lines-- difficult at first-- the better you will be equipped to handle more pieces that come your way. There is only a very tiny amount of piano works that are written for one hand, so really, it's in your best interest to just dive in.
The happy medium, in my opinion, is a 90-10 split. You start out playing with both hands (and pedal, don't forget those feet!). Then from playing, you figure out what you need to work on and separate as needed. This should mostly be from the technical standpoint, because to work on the overall interpretation, you really need all the parts together and playing each part individually isn't really going to help you much in the long run. I suppose, if you were working on a piece that was in the outer reaches of your technique, the split might become more even, but even then I don't think it should reach more than 60-40.
I'm originally a pianist, and then I got to the carillon, where similar to the organ, your feet move around a lot. It was hard for me learning an extra "line" (my feet), and it was always tempting to just practice the feet separately because it was so difficult for me and it slowed down my playing greatly. However, you move differently depending on what your hands AND feet are doing, so I became resigned to the fact that yes, no matter how excruciating, I need to play everything at once (and I do, so I'm intermediate sight-reader now). It's okay to play one at first to figure out what the melody is doing and what things you should emphasize, and just figure out the overall placement, but again, the piece is most improved when you play the entire piece, no matter how slowly at first, with all its parts and trappings. |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | When I was taking piano lessons I learned each piece three times: Once with the right hand, once with the left hand, and the third time putting both together. After a while, the third "learning" came a lot more quickly, and after a few years I would start to slowly sight read both parts together.
Today I will still practice the hard pieces one handed from time to time, especially when the timing is really disconnected between the two hands and I need at least one to go on automatic pilot. There are some pieces (*Leyenda* by Albeniz comes to mind) where the two parts are so intertwined it never makes sense to try to learn them alone. Usually that's clear from the beginning when it's the case. | That depends on the piece sometimes. My old teacher used to say practice one separately until you've got it down then "see" them together. Honestly, I'd recommend practicing one measure at a time by repeating one until you've got it and then move on. Lastly, play from the beginning after a few measures to smooth over any rough spots :) |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | When I was taking piano lessons I learned each piece three times: Once with the right hand, once with the left hand, and the third time putting both together. After a while, the third "learning" came a lot more quickly, and after a few years I would start to slowly sight read both parts together.
Today I will still practice the hard pieces one handed from time to time, especially when the timing is really disconnected between the two hands and I need at least one to go on automatic pilot. There are some pieces (*Leyenda* by Albeniz comes to mind) where the two parts are so intertwined it never makes sense to try to learn them alone. Usually that's clear from the beginning when it's the case. | I have never heard of one-handed practice actually being *harmful* for any piece of music, nor that it might teach you something you would later have to unlearn.
Slow practice and one-handed practice have both been essential to me on the piano, (although separating the limbs doesn't seem to help me on drums, interestingly), and one thing that helps very much in combination with them is dividing a bar up into a larger number of sub-beats, to understand it.
Imagine trying to tap out 2 beats per bar evenly on one hand, and 3 beats per bar evenly on your other hand.
If you subdivide the bar into 6 then one hand takes beats 1 and 4 while the other takes beats 1, 3 and 5. Many rhythms can be understood more easily that way, and practiced more slowly, on pretty much any instrument.
Large books full of short, graded exercises will not only strengthen your little fingers but prepare you for all sorts of confusingly counterpointed melodies. |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | When I was taking piano lessons I learned each piece three times: Once with the right hand, once with the left hand, and the third time putting both together. After a while, the third "learning" came a lot more quickly, and after a few years I would start to slowly sight read both parts together.
Today I will still practice the hard pieces one handed from time to time, especially when the timing is really disconnected between the two hands and I need at least one to go on automatic pilot. There are some pieces (*Leyenda* by Albeniz comes to mind) where the two parts are so intertwined it never makes sense to try to learn them alone. Usually that's clear from the beginning when it's the case. | I generally only practice certain passages one hand at a time, typically when I'm having trouble with something in one of the hands. The more general rule is to isolate technical difficulties and work on them, which sometimes means working only one hand. I especially do this when I'm working out what fingering to use on a passage.
I also find that, as I'm right-handed, I have to put more time into the left hand. So, I often work with just the left hand. Chopin Nocturnes are a good example, because there are lots of leaps in the left hand that I tend to get sloppy with if I'm paying attention to the melody.
I wouldn't recommend going over just one hand in a really long passage all at once, though. It's easy to lose your sense of the music, which can make the final result sound mechanical. |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | The mantra in learning piano is: "start slowly." How slow is slow? So slow you are unable to make mistakes, and then a little slower than that.
Invariably when I have to choose a speed at which I think I can't make a mistake, at first I think: "come on, this is ridiculous!, of course I can't make a mistake"... and then I make a mistake.
As for the specific problem of hand coördination:
In the very beginning it helped me to practice away from the piano at first with my hands on my knees. For every note in my left hand I slapped my hand on my left knee and vice versa. When I could do that, I played the right hand on the piano and simultaneously moved my left hand in the air (or slapped it on my knee). After that I switched roles. The next step was playing with both hands at the same time, slowly.
After several weeks this kind of exercise wasn't needed anymore, but in the beginning I found it helpful to 'rewire my brain' so to speak.
Concerning hands separate versus hands together:
For any piece 'at your level' beginning with practising hands separate is needed. It's being used to tackle problems of reading, fingering, dynamics,..., before adding the extra complexity of having two hands to control.
But what I experience is that playing hands together after having practiced hands separate can feel as starting completely over. What I mean is that passages that were comfortable hands separate, are feeling clumsy again when starting hands together. Sometimes it is like having to learn the piece all over again. So the need to start slowly (and even slower than that) is there again but now hands together.
Because of that in my experience it is not efficient to practice towards 'perfection' hands separate before beginning hands together.
Of course the process of practicing hands together is greatly shortened (or even possible), because of the knowledge you gained from the practice hands separate, and that's what I use it for: orientation, experimentation and planning. But really learning the piece only starts with hands together. | I cannot gauge your piano level very well, but if you are having difficulties playing both hands at the same time, then the piece is may be too difficult for your level.
For piano players that are beyond the elementary level, I believe most players usually start learning the song both hands at the same time. This does help you get to learn the timing of the right and left hand right from the get go, instead of having to piece them together later on. Learning each separately and then piecing together later may actually be slower (depends on the piece) because of complex interweaving melodies, etc...
However, the practice is often done separately as needed. My piano teacher used to say if you cannot play the one hand alone, you definitely cannot play it properly with two hands. When practicing one-handedly, it will often reveal mistakes that you don't really notice while playing with two hands.
For elementary players, (at least from my experience), usually the learning process is just:
* right handed songs;
* primarily right handed songs with some added notes on the bass clef
* more difficult songs with a more involved bass line for the left hand
That's why as I said earlier, perhaps if you are having difficulties of left and right handed songs, then maybe you are playing songs with a bass line that is too difficult at the moment for you.
One thing you can do to improve independent motor control with your hands is practice your left and right brain. The left brain controls the right hand and right brain for left hand. One exercise I was taught is to try rubbing your right hand on your thigh in a forward and backward motion (relative to a sitting position), and with your left hand do a upward and downward motion in a fist. Switch it up to have right hand as a fist, and left hand doing the rubbing. I know it sounds and looks retarded, but some people actually have difficulty because it involves independent directional motion. |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | When I first started learning piano I also used to practice one hand at a time. I think it is important because then in the end it's all about coordination and if you want your hands to be well coordinated you first need each hand to know what it has to do.
Putting it all together is then a completely different story, you'll have to focus on the coordination and not on the single hand anymore plus you'll have to read 2 staff at a time (which might be tricky for someone which is not used to that), but indeed the practice that you gained playing with separate hands will help.
With experience and practice you'll do that more quickly and start putting it all together soon, however I still give a shot at each hand separately, I think it helps a lot. Of course with increasing difficulty of the piece you want to play you'll spend much more time practicing with two hands together. At times you'll have to focus on a small amount of bars when you'll have some difficult phrase (and then there are many ways which might help studying a single piece depending on the technique involved), which is also recommended when there are some particularly difficult parts in the piece (but I think this applies to the viola as well). | I have never heard of one-handed practice actually being *harmful* for any piece of music, nor that it might teach you something you would later have to unlearn.
Slow practice and one-handed practice have both been essential to me on the piano, (although separating the limbs doesn't seem to help me on drums, interestingly), and one thing that helps very much in combination with them is dividing a bar up into a larger number of sub-beats, to understand it.
Imagine trying to tap out 2 beats per bar evenly on one hand, and 3 beats per bar evenly on your other hand.
If you subdivide the bar into 6 then one hand takes beats 1 and 4 while the other takes beats 1, 3 and 5. Many rhythms can be understood more easily that way, and practiced more slowly, on pretty much any instrument.
Large books full of short, graded exercises will not only strengthen your little fingers but prepare you for all sorts of confusingly counterpointed melodies. |
39,871 | I've started to teach myself how to play the piano, and one of the difficulties I've found is trying to get both hands to do things at once. I either forget one hand entirely, or have one hand trying to mimic the other.
This reminded me of many years ago when I was taught to play the viola. For many weeks, we did not use the bow, instead focusing on getting the left hand to do the things it was supposed to, and learning to read music. In hindsight, this makes sense to me, as it's often important to get used to some fundamentals before attempting to do everything at once.
So I was wondering, when learning the piano, is it better to learn each hand on their own, or muddle through the difficulties of synchronizing them from the beginning? Or, if there are arguments for both methods, what are the pros/cons of each? What problems may develop, or what difficulties might be avoided? Or is there perhaps a happy medium that has proven the most successful?
For my personal musical background, I have about nine years' experience with the viola, though I haven't played it in about five years (stopped after high school). I also play the guitar, but never learned to read music for it. | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/39871",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/24978/"
] | It's very normal to have issues playing with both hands at first, but if you're finding yourself completely unable to do so at all, then maybe you're attempting to play music that's too hard for you. This is a common problem for people that have significant experience on one instrument and then start another. It feels embarrassing to go all the way back to basics and play stuff that you feel like is meant for 5-year-olds, but it really has to be done. You're gonna play some Mary Had A Little Lamb, with the melody in the right hand, and single whole notes in the left. There are some method books out there that have slightly more dignified music, if that helps.
Some struggle is good (it's the only way to grow), but hitting a wall isn't productive. | Independence of both hands can be practiced by exercises of kinesiology e.g. cross-crawl.
There are many helpful links:
<https://www.holistic-reflexology.co.uk/cross-crawl.html>
A good exercise will also be to tap with one hand on your head while drawing circles with the other hand on your breast.
Every rhythm practice on your knees will also be beneficial.
Start two hands Piano playing with prelude no. 1 by Bach. |
66,520 | I was offered a job by a US software company.
On my first day at work they told me they couldn't actually hire me for legal and technical reasons.
So, now they want me to be a consultant and to become self-employed.
I had plans to buy a house in UK soon, and now I won't be able to do it unless I provide at least 24 months of invoices as self-employed.
Nobody is taking responsibility, they are blaming their 'solicitors'.
Therefore, my question is: how can I handle this situation (sudden request to change contract) in a professional way? | 2016/05/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66520",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49496/"
] | Let's think about this:
**Either the company was shockingly incompetent in hiring you or intentionally misleading**. Despite having accountants, solicitors, and an HR department, they apparently did not figure out the cost of employing you before offering you a written contract? That is quite a mistake to make, but I suppose it is possible. A more worrying possibility is that this was a bait-and-switch, and they never intended to hire you on the basis of the original contract. Ultimately, you can't know which of these is true, but it doesn't reflect well on the company either way.
**Their response after making a mistake has been combative.** I would expect a mistake of this magnitude to be followed by a much more conciliatory response. Some of the problems I see:
* **They refused to just take the financial hit and hire you anyway.** A company that values its employees should just bear this cost, as it was their mistake, rather than trying to back out of a signed contract--unless they legitimately can't afford to pay. But being unable to afford one extra year of your salary is hard to believe: they seem like a pretty good sized organization, based on your description of the situation, and surely your salary is not *that* big!
* **They are tone-deaf to your situation.** Insisting they are being "generous", after they just messed up in a way that will clearly cost you big time, is quite worrying. They ought to be apologetic, but instead they are trying claim your unhappiness with their huge mistake is your problem!
* **They are nickel-and-diming you** by not being flexible at all on covering your extra expenses.
* **They have no problem turning up the pressure in contract negotiations**, treating you as an adversary rather than a new team member that they value. Adding a new clause about suing you seems like a pressure tactic. The refusal to add any protections is worrying.
All in all, this adds up to a situation in which **I would be worried about my future working for this company, no matter how these negotiations turn out.** Therefore I would take a less "friendly" approach to the negotiations. Two options I see:
**Fight for the original contract, contacting a solicitor to assess your options.** I'm not qualified to give legal advice. But it seems quite possible that what they are doing is not legal.
* They may be failing to honor the contract (even if there is a probationary period where they can swiftly terminate you, they appear to have been acting in bad faith). I don't know the right technical terms for this, but I would be surprised if there was no basis for challenging this in UK employment law.
* They also appear to be pushing [to classify you (wrongly) as self-employed](https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/selfemployed-contractor). This is not just something that can be designated arbitrarily. You have to actually *function as self-employed* to be classified this way.
It's possible that raising the illegality of their actions might convince them to retreat and offer the original contract. Or, in the event that things can't be worked out, you may be able to take them to court and collect damages (whether the size of the damages would be worth the hassle is not something I can answer).
Another option is to **go the self-employed route, but insist on being *really* self-employed**. State that if you are going to be self-employed, you want to send them a quote for the agreed work, with a price that you set, and that they can negotiate from that as a starting point. Also, if you are self employed you need freedom to do the work when and where you please, and take other clients. You can point out that UK tax law requires this sort of thing--these aren't unreasonable demands you are making. This will give you more freedom to seek other opportunities. It will also give you more control of the situation, making it harder for them to further take advantage of you in the future.
**Both of these options carry some risk.** If you really feel you can't walk away from this job, it limits your negotiating options, but the second one is less risky, and you can do that one more mildly if you choose (the first option is pretty much all-or-nothing). | I am not a lawyer. **You need a lawyer.** The legalities in the UK of unilaterally changing a contract of employment are complex. The UK is not the US, and employment is not generally "at-will".
Changing a contract you have agreed to on day one, with no notice at all, is certainly bad practice and [probably illegal in the UK](https://www.gov.uk/your-employment-contract-how-it-can-be-changed). "We didn't expect the expenses we're incurring" is surely [not a valid reason to change a contract on day 1](https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/reasons-you-can-be-dismissed) and the courts will almost certainly take a dim view of it because due diligence should have been undertaken in drawing up the contract. Unexpected expenses *may* be a valid reason to give you your contractual notice of dismissal, if there is one (the statutory notice period only [kicks in after a month](https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/notice-periods)).
You could attempt to enforce the contract you originally signed. You could accept the new contract. You could accept their abrogation of the original contract, not accept their new contract, and walk away, possibly to rejoin your previous employer. You **must** get the advice of an employment lawyer. |
66,520 | I was offered a job by a US software company.
On my first day at work they told me they couldn't actually hire me for legal and technical reasons.
So, now they want me to be a consultant and to become self-employed.
I had plans to buy a house in UK soon, and now I won't be able to do it unless I provide at least 24 months of invoices as self-employed.
Nobody is taking responsibility, they are blaming their 'solicitors'.
Therefore, my question is: how can I handle this situation (sudden request to change contract) in a professional way? | 2016/05/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66520",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49496/"
] | >
> they added a new clause where the company might sue me to hell and back if they find it appropriate
>
>
>
That's a contract that I might be disinclined to sign.
For example as an employee I wouldn't expect to be *sued* if someone finds a fault in software that I've written (because I expect them to test it too, etc.) ... but as an contractor (perhaps a.k.a. "independent supplier") I'm not so sure. What if they were sued by *their* client, and they tried to deflect the liability onto me?
They may allow you to tweak the wording of the contract slightly (before you sign it, assuming your request is reasonable and they want to employ you).
For example I once altered a contract so that it said I could expect to be sued in the case of "gross negligence", instead of just "negligence" (I decided there's a difference between negligence and gross negligence and the latter would be more difficult to prove).
If you are going to be self-employed, here's quite an interesting video I watched recently on the subject of legalities -- [Mike Monteiro: F\*ck You, Pay Me](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U) | At first sight it looks like there is a good legal case against the USA Company. However UK employment law gives very little protection to someone until they have been in a job for some time. Assuming the notice period on the employment offer was 1 month, the most you are likely to win from the company in a legal case is 1 month’s wages. (But you may get them to pay you 3 months wages, if they don’t wish their name to be all over the papers.)
**But trying to force a company outside of the UK to pay up, even when ordered by a UK court is expensive and likely to fail.**
Don’t sign a consultant contract with them in your personal name without getting very good legal advice!
Tell them you will need to consult with a UK lawyer on your return to the UK before you agree to anything. Get them to pay ALL your expensive for the trip the USA cleared in your bank account, before rejecting any offer they make!
If you create a limited company in the UK, and only sign any contracts in the company name you can protect yourself from most risks of them suing you. **To cover the costs of running the company etc, expect to get “paid” double what you would in a “job”.**
Personally I would get as much compensation out of them as possible due to them misleading you about the job and you leaving your past job, then find some other work. **Life is too short to a setup as complex as what they are trying to get you into.** |
66,520 | I was offered a job by a US software company.
On my first day at work they told me they couldn't actually hire me for legal and technical reasons.
So, now they want me to be a consultant and to become self-employed.
I had plans to buy a house in UK soon, and now I won't be able to do it unless I provide at least 24 months of invoices as self-employed.
Nobody is taking responsibility, they are blaming their 'solicitors'.
Therefore, my question is: how can I handle this situation (sudden request to change contract) in a professional way? | 2016/05/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66520",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49496/"
] | As you've already pushed back on the T&Cs for the consultant role, it sounds like what you've got is pretty much their final offer, so it's now up to you to decide what you want to do. You've got three options:
* Take the consultant role, with the intention of staying in the role long-term.
* Take the consultant role, but start looking for a new role ASAP.
* Reject the consultant role.
Any of these can be handled in a professional manner: the first is easy, the last is simply "Sorry, I'm looking for a role as a permanent employee". The second is perhaps the trickiest, but so long as you do your job as well as you can for the period you're working for your employer, it's going to be "just one of those things". Your potential employer has screwed this one up *massively*, so you shouldn't be expected to go out of your way to deal with their HR mess, and you've got to earn money in the meantime. | * I would find it hard to work for that company after these events. So forcing yourself into it should probably not be what you want.
* The issue is pretty clear; they stepped out of the contract on day 1. What does your contract say about how that works? Does it have a clause where they have to keep you on for at least XXX amount of time?
* Signed contracts cannot simple be "changed" by one party. Get a lawyer, get at least your costs back from them (that means the missed income during the time you are without job, etc.), and make perfectly clear that you will not be their victim. Depending on whether U.S. or U.K. law applies (both of which I'm not terribly familiar with) you might have more or less leverage. |
66,520 | I was offered a job by a US software company.
On my first day at work they told me they couldn't actually hire me for legal and technical reasons.
So, now they want me to be a consultant and to become self-employed.
I had plans to buy a house in UK soon, and now I won't be able to do it unless I provide at least 24 months of invoices as self-employed.
Nobody is taking responsibility, they are blaming their 'solicitors'.
Therefore, my question is: how can I handle this situation (sudden request to change contract) in a professional way? | 2016/05/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66520",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49496/"
] | Let's think about this:
**Either the company was shockingly incompetent in hiring you or intentionally misleading**. Despite having accountants, solicitors, and an HR department, they apparently did not figure out the cost of employing you before offering you a written contract? That is quite a mistake to make, but I suppose it is possible. A more worrying possibility is that this was a bait-and-switch, and they never intended to hire you on the basis of the original contract. Ultimately, you can't know which of these is true, but it doesn't reflect well on the company either way.
**Their response after making a mistake has been combative.** I would expect a mistake of this magnitude to be followed by a much more conciliatory response. Some of the problems I see:
* **They refused to just take the financial hit and hire you anyway.** A company that values its employees should just bear this cost, as it was their mistake, rather than trying to back out of a signed contract--unless they legitimately can't afford to pay. But being unable to afford one extra year of your salary is hard to believe: they seem like a pretty good sized organization, based on your description of the situation, and surely your salary is not *that* big!
* **They are tone-deaf to your situation.** Insisting they are being "generous", after they just messed up in a way that will clearly cost you big time, is quite worrying. They ought to be apologetic, but instead they are trying claim your unhappiness with their huge mistake is your problem!
* **They are nickel-and-diming you** by not being flexible at all on covering your extra expenses.
* **They have no problem turning up the pressure in contract negotiations**, treating you as an adversary rather than a new team member that they value. Adding a new clause about suing you seems like a pressure tactic. The refusal to add any protections is worrying.
All in all, this adds up to a situation in which **I would be worried about my future working for this company, no matter how these negotiations turn out.** Therefore I would take a less "friendly" approach to the negotiations. Two options I see:
**Fight for the original contract, contacting a solicitor to assess your options.** I'm not qualified to give legal advice. But it seems quite possible that what they are doing is not legal.
* They may be failing to honor the contract (even if there is a probationary period where they can swiftly terminate you, they appear to have been acting in bad faith). I don't know the right technical terms for this, but I would be surprised if there was no basis for challenging this in UK employment law.
* They also appear to be pushing [to classify you (wrongly) as self-employed](https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/selfemployed-contractor). This is not just something that can be designated arbitrarily. You have to actually *function as self-employed* to be classified this way.
It's possible that raising the illegality of their actions might convince them to retreat and offer the original contract. Or, in the event that things can't be worked out, you may be able to take them to court and collect damages (whether the size of the damages would be worth the hassle is not something I can answer).
Another option is to **go the self-employed route, but insist on being *really* self-employed**. State that if you are going to be self-employed, you want to send them a quote for the agreed work, with a price that you set, and that they can negotiate from that as a starting point. Also, if you are self employed you need freedom to do the work when and where you please, and take other clients. You can point out that UK tax law requires this sort of thing--these aren't unreasonable demands you are making. This will give you more freedom to seek other opportunities. It will also give you more control of the situation, making it harder for them to further take advantage of you in the future.
**Both of these options carry some risk.** If you really feel you can't walk away from this job, it limits your negotiating options, but the second one is less risky, and you can do that one more mildly if you choose (the first option is pretty much all-or-nothing). | You can start your one-man limited liability company in the UK and use it to maximise your income by being tax-efficient.
Instead of a monthly salary, you would agree on a daily rate. I'd say that £100 gross daily rate (that is you pay all your cost, taxes, etc out of that rate) is equivalent to about £15,000 annual pre-tax income (your official income where the employee withholds tax and employee's national insurance).
Any threats of suing you are void, as long as you make sure any contract is between them and your limited liability company, and that there is no money in the company by paying out everything as dividends. Which is not optimal for tax purposes, but what can you do.
BTW. No need to handle this professionally. You need to handle this in the way that is most beneficial to you. |
66,520 | I was offered a job by a US software company.
On my first day at work they told me they couldn't actually hire me for legal and technical reasons.
So, now they want me to be a consultant and to become self-employed.
I had plans to buy a house in UK soon, and now I won't be able to do it unless I provide at least 24 months of invoices as self-employed.
Nobody is taking responsibility, they are blaming their 'solicitors'.
Therefore, my question is: how can I handle this situation (sudden request to change contract) in a professional way? | 2016/05/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66520",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49496/"
] | As you've already pushed back on the T&Cs for the consultant role, it sounds like what you've got is pretty much their final offer, so it's now up to you to decide what you want to do. You've got three options:
* Take the consultant role, with the intention of staying in the role long-term.
* Take the consultant role, but start looking for a new role ASAP.
* Reject the consultant role.
Any of these can be handled in a professional manner: the first is easy, the last is simply "Sorry, I'm looking for a role as a permanent employee". The second is perhaps the trickiest, but so long as you do your job as well as you can for the period you're working for your employer, it's going to be "just one of those things". Your potential employer has screwed this one up *massively*, so you shouldn't be expected to go out of your way to deal with their HR mess, and you've got to earn money in the meantime. | Have they increased the monetary value of their offer now they are asking you to be a contractor? Being self employed means that you lose the benefits of having an employer: you will need to pay your own employer's national insurance and you won't get holiday or sick pay, etc. etc.
As a rule of thumb, as a contractor you should be looking for roughly double the salary that you would receive as a full time employee. |
66,520 | I was offered a job by a US software company.
On my first day at work they told me they couldn't actually hire me for legal and technical reasons.
So, now they want me to be a consultant and to become self-employed.
I had plans to buy a house in UK soon, and now I won't be able to do it unless I provide at least 24 months of invoices as self-employed.
Nobody is taking responsibility, they are blaming their 'solicitors'.
Therefore, my question is: how can I handle this situation (sudden request to change contract) in a professional way? | 2016/05/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66520",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49496/"
] | Tell them that **this is not what you signed up for**. They have gone back on your agreement and violated your contract, before you've even started work. Say **you regretfully must decline to work with them**.
And when they come back at you with nonsense about how you've signed a contract, remind them what that contract says. No court is going to side with them defending a contract that you're walking away from *because they have completely broken it already*.
Any further discussion takes place through your lawyer, *only*.
In the meantime, **call up your old supervisor, tell him it didn't work out, and ask whether there is room for you to return**. It hasn't been very long, so that may very well be possible. It might sound strange but **there's really no shame** in simply returning to your job. I work with three people who have gone off and varyingly worked for other companies for a bit (later realising their mistake) since they first became my colleagues. | At first sight it looks like there is a good legal case against the USA Company. However UK employment law gives very little protection to someone until they have been in a job for some time. Assuming the notice period on the employment offer was 1 month, the most you are likely to win from the company in a legal case is 1 month’s wages. (But you may get them to pay you 3 months wages, if they don’t wish their name to be all over the papers.)
**But trying to force a company outside of the UK to pay up, even when ordered by a UK court is expensive and likely to fail.**
Don’t sign a consultant contract with them in your personal name without getting very good legal advice!
Tell them you will need to consult with a UK lawyer on your return to the UK before you agree to anything. Get them to pay ALL your expensive for the trip the USA cleared in your bank account, before rejecting any offer they make!
If you create a limited company in the UK, and only sign any contracts in the company name you can protect yourself from most risks of them suing you. **To cover the costs of running the company etc, expect to get “paid” double what you would in a “job”.**
Personally I would get as much compensation out of them as possible due to them misleading you about the job and you leaving your past job, then find some other work. **Life is too short to a setup as complex as what they are trying to get you into.** |
66,520 | I was offered a job by a US software company.
On my first day at work they told me they couldn't actually hire me for legal and technical reasons.
So, now they want me to be a consultant and to become self-employed.
I had plans to buy a house in UK soon, and now I won't be able to do it unless I provide at least 24 months of invoices as self-employed.
Nobody is taking responsibility, they are blaming their 'solicitors'.
Therefore, my question is: how can I handle this situation (sudden request to change contract) in a professional way? | 2016/05/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66520",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49496/"
] | Tell them that **this is not what you signed up for**. They have gone back on your agreement and violated your contract, before you've even started work. Say **you regretfully must decline to work with them**.
And when they come back at you with nonsense about how you've signed a contract, remind them what that contract says. No court is going to side with them defending a contract that you're walking away from *because they have completely broken it already*.
Any further discussion takes place through your lawyer, *only*.
In the meantime, **call up your old supervisor, tell him it didn't work out, and ask whether there is room for you to return**. It hasn't been very long, so that may very well be possible. It might sound strange but **there's really no shame** in simply returning to your job. I work with three people who have gone off and varyingly worked for other companies for a bit (later realising their mistake) since they first became my colleagues. | Have they increased the monetary value of their offer now they are asking you to be a contractor? Being self employed means that you lose the benefits of having an employer: you will need to pay your own employer's national insurance and you won't get holiday or sick pay, etc. etc.
As a rule of thumb, as a contractor you should be looking for roughly double the salary that you would receive as a full time employee. |
66,520 | I was offered a job by a US software company.
On my first day at work they told me they couldn't actually hire me for legal and technical reasons.
So, now they want me to be a consultant and to become self-employed.
I had plans to buy a house in UK soon, and now I won't be able to do it unless I provide at least 24 months of invoices as self-employed.
Nobody is taking responsibility, they are blaming their 'solicitors'.
Therefore, my question is: how can I handle this situation (sudden request to change contract) in a professional way? | 2016/05/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66520",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49496/"
] | You can start your one-man limited liability company in the UK and use it to maximise your income by being tax-efficient.
Instead of a monthly salary, you would agree on a daily rate. I'd say that £100 gross daily rate (that is you pay all your cost, taxes, etc out of that rate) is equivalent to about £15,000 annual pre-tax income (your official income where the employee withholds tax and employee's national insurance).
Any threats of suing you are void, as long as you make sure any contract is between them and your limited liability company, and that there is no money in the company by paying out everything as dividends. Which is not optimal for tax purposes, but what can you do.
BTW. No need to handle this professionally. You need to handle this in the way that is most beneficial to you. | Have they increased the monetary value of their offer now they are asking you to be a contractor? Being self employed means that you lose the benefits of having an employer: you will need to pay your own employer's national insurance and you won't get holiday or sick pay, etc. etc.
As a rule of thumb, as a contractor you should be looking for roughly double the salary that you would receive as a full time employee. |
66,520 | I was offered a job by a US software company.
On my first day at work they told me they couldn't actually hire me for legal and technical reasons.
So, now they want me to be a consultant and to become self-employed.
I had plans to buy a house in UK soon, and now I won't be able to do it unless I provide at least 24 months of invoices as self-employed.
Nobody is taking responsibility, they are blaming their 'solicitors'.
Therefore, my question is: how can I handle this situation (sudden request to change contract) in a professional way? | 2016/05/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66520",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49496/"
] | >
> they added a new clause where the company might sue me to hell and back if they find it appropriate
>
>
>
That's a contract that I might be disinclined to sign.
For example as an employee I wouldn't expect to be *sued* if someone finds a fault in software that I've written (because I expect them to test it too, etc.) ... but as an contractor (perhaps a.k.a. "independent supplier") I'm not so sure. What if they were sued by *their* client, and they tried to deflect the liability onto me?
They may allow you to tweak the wording of the contract slightly (before you sign it, assuming your request is reasonable and they want to employ you).
For example I once altered a contract so that it said I could expect to be sued in the case of "gross negligence", instead of just "negligence" (I decided there's a difference between negligence and gross negligence and the latter would be more difficult to prove).
If you are going to be self-employed, here's quite an interesting video I watched recently on the subject of legalities -- [Mike Monteiro: F\*ck You, Pay Me](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U) | The contract appears to be a bait-and-switch, in that they tempted you away from your previous employment with a very generous sum, only to rescind said contract after you accepted, which I believe violates good faith in terms of legality, and certainly illegal.
Now they have you in an unfavourable situation, they will attempt to whittle down and remove the benefits and hope the pressure of needing a job forces you to accept the now unfair and dubious terms.
The fact they continue to, like a classic Nigerian scam email, offer you generous sums whilst whittling down your rights (being self-employed means they can terminate you at any time, and the lawsuit clause means they can sue you like a third party: basically, they intend to get you to work for them, then sue back the 'generous' money they give you) is highly suspicious and a red flag for underhanded approaches.
This is a malicious company, and I would actually go so far as to recommend detailing your experiences online publicly and outing the company so other people do not fall for this trap. Such underhanded practices should not be tolerated nor disguised. |
1,570 | While related to [an early discussion on retro gaming](https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/433/what-defines-retro-gaming), this isn't the same.
I noticed a question got retagged to [old-games](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/old-games "show questions tagged 'old-games'"), which investigation led me to see that it has a 66 questions (excluding two closed game-rec). 26 of them are not [identify-this-game](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/identify-this-game "show questions tagged 'identify-this-game'"), making 40 of them exceptionally redundant - the majority of identification questions are about old games, otherwise you probably didn't forget it.
Those 26 range from [how to deal with or run "old" games](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/8420/cpu-or-framerate-limiting-on-older-games "How to play on modern systems, often.") and [where to find "old" games](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/where-to-get-help-choosing-older-pc-games "Both finding stores and finding about remakes, it seems.") to [gameplay and story questions for "old" games](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/6125/what-happens-at-the-end-of-impossible-mission-ii).
We lack a consistency in the application of this tag. There's also no real definition for what constitutes "old" games that we can use to build any consistency. There is a danger associated with certain age definitions, the same which makes [upcoming-games](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/upcoming-games "show questions tagged 'upcoming-games'") [a particularly dangerous tag](https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1339/how-should-we-deal-with-out-of-date-questions-answers/1341#1341 "You only need to care about the first paragraph"): tags that change over time cause a lot of problems.
We could use a definition to the purpose of this tag. To me, the tag mostly conflicts with the usage of platform tags. One knows that an NES game is old by virtue of it being on the NES, and anything modern-made for an old platform probably stands out more by its own name than by the fact it lacks an old-games tag. Its primary usage that makes sense to me is for generic questions about older games that can be asked without any particular platform being of concern. In that case, there are a lot of questions with it that should have it removed.
What does everyone else think? What does [old-games](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/old-games "show questions tagged 'old-games'") give us? | 2010/12/27 | [
"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1570",
"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/users/85/"
] | Personally I think the tag should be removed entirely, since I don't find it very useful to filter on anything and it would require extensive maintenance in the years to come. If we do manage to stick a definition on it, say "games that came out 15 years ago", then past a certain point in time we'll have to go back and tag *many* of the questions on this site under [old-games]. At the rate we're gaining questions that's simply not feasible, and it just sounds like a massive headache for what appears to me to have been of such little benefit. | I have always thought of this tag as "Games that no longer natively run on modern hardware/operative systems or need compatibility tweaking to run properly," for use in questions that deal with said compatibility settings and/or emulation techniques and/or future proofing. |
414,471 | I run AVG Antivirus (version 8.5, I believe). Now I want to install "Dragon Naturally Speaking", a speech recognition software. During installation I'm told that I need to temporarily disable my antivirus. How do I temporarily disable it? | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/414471",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/129190/"
] | As @Eroen already said, this might not be necessary.
Most programs install just fine with the antivirus enabled. If they don't, either the installer or the antivirus is poorly written.
From [Disabling AVG temporarily | FAQ | AVG Worldwide](http://www.avg.com/ww-en/faq.num-3857):
>
> The AVG software protects your computer on multiple levels. **In case you need to disable all AVG components at once** please follow the steps below:
>
>
> 1. Open the AVG Program.
> 2. On the **Tools** menu, click **Advanced settings**.
> 3. Click **Temporarily disable AVG protection** in the menu on the left side.
> 4. Select the **Temporarily disable AVG protection** check box, and then click **OK**.
> 5. Choose how long you want the protection to be disabled and whether to disable the Firewall as well, and then click **Disable real-time protection**.
>
>
>
Since you only disable it temporarily, there is no need to manually enable it afterwards. It will do so automatically. | 1. Control Panel>Administrative Tools>System Configuration
2. Click on the Startup tab
3. Uncheck AVG
4. Click restart
5. do what you need to
6. repeat 1&2
7. recheck AVG, click restart again |
499,370 | Mark Zuckerberg said, "Our mission has, really, always been to connect the world."
My questions is:
Can we say "Our mission ***is,*** really, always to connect the world"?
What's the difference between "has always been" and "is always" in this context?
Thank you for your help! | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/499370",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/349045/"
] | "has always been" means that the mission was always like this in the past.
"is always" is less emphatic about the past, and stresses the current and future mission.
If the mission were actually changing significantly, this could be made even clearer by saying "is now". | When you use: "has....to connect"
it means their mission is trying continuously to connect the world.
On the other hand,when you use:"is.....to connect"
it means their mission is made up to connect the world. |
225,377 | "For a celebrated actor, I was surprised at how ordinary he was." The "celebrated actor" refers, of course, to "he" (not "I"). However it seems to me the grammatical construction is wrong. By substituting the preposition "for" with "as" to read "As a celebrated actor, I was surprised at how ordinary he was," is now grammatically correct but drastically changes the meaning. How can I say what I want to say in plain conversational English? | 2015/02/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/225377",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/108442/"
] | >
> For a celebrated actor, I was surprised at how ordinary he was.
>
>
>
This is a [perfectly acceptable use of *for* indicating a comparison](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/for#1-6), and it's pretty clear that *he* is the actor (although in theory it could refer to the *I*, in practice the choice of *for* over *as* would leave no doubt in the mind of the audience). If you wanted to make it doubly clear, you could change the order:
>
> I was surprised at how ordinary he was for a celebrated actor.
>
>
> | In *writing*, I don't have a huge problem with your original formulation. I can't see a way to rearrange things that makes it clearer without making it more awkward.
For *conversational* English though, its way too long-winded. If I was just talking to my buds, it would be more like, "I was shocked. He's just a regular guy, not some hoity-toity1 celebrity."
1 - Sprinkle expletives to taste. |
225,377 | "For a celebrated actor, I was surprised at how ordinary he was." The "celebrated actor" refers, of course, to "he" (not "I"). However it seems to me the grammatical construction is wrong. By substituting the preposition "for" with "as" to read "As a celebrated actor, I was surprised at how ordinary he was," is now grammatically correct but drastically changes the meaning. How can I say what I want to say in plain conversational English? | 2015/02/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/225377",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/108442/"
] | >
> For a celebrated actor, I was surprised at how ordinary he was.
>
>
>
This is a [perfectly acceptable use of *for* indicating a comparison](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/for#1-6), and it's pretty clear that *he* is the actor (although in theory it could refer to the *I*, in practice the choice of *for* over *as* would leave no doubt in the mind of the audience). If you wanted to make it doubly clear, you could change the order:
>
> I was surprised at how ordinary he was for a celebrated actor.
>
>
> | The way the sentence is written "for a celebrated actor" modifies "I", which is not the intended meaning. This is called a dangling modifier.
The following sentences avoid this ambiguity:
I was surprised that for a celebrated actor, he was pretty/rather/quite ordinary.
I was surprised that he was such an ordinary guy, despite being a celebrated actor. |
5,104,534 | Can someone explain me IntelliJ IDEA's workflow of compilation, deployment and packaging with binded maven project ?
I've encountered some misunderstanding when I'm starting tomcat server via IDEA's debug mode. For example I have one artifact - war archive.
As I understand when I'm running debug mode - IDEA recompiles and updates changed code into war-archive.
But what happens with packaged maven artifact ? Does IntelliJ updates it ? Or I have to set 'Buld maven before startup' option to be sure that changed code will be uploaded to environment ? | 2011/02/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5104534",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/71420/"
] | Intelli J doesn't use maven to build the project it uses its own build process. It uses the pom file as a description of the project.
This means a couple of things, if you want to build an artifact such as a war file when running in tomcat then all you have to do is tell IntelliJ to build the war in the Run/Debug Configurations dialog. IntelliJ will automatically build any artifacts you specify under the deployment tab of your run/debug configuration. So if you specify the exploded war it will build the exploded war, if you specify the regular war it will build the regular war.
Occasionally people need to run custom plugins or build targets in which case you can configure IntelliJ to run the custom maven goals.
You can also tell intellIJ to run the maven package goal rather than build the artifact. IntelliJ will deploy whatever is under the target directory to tomcat.
The important take away is IntellIJ is using two separate build systems. You need to tell each build system what to do. And you need to tell IntelliJ which build system to use for what. IntelliJ will by default use it's own build system once a project has been imported, unless you tell it to use maven for something.
While IntelliJ will build the artifact you specify in the pom file it won't do things like deploy them your artifact repository (local or other wise) unless you click on the deploy target in the Maven tools window.
Also if you change your pom file and don't have auto re-import enabled those changes won't be reflected in your project until you click the force re-import option from the maven tools window. | I think you are looking for that.
[Maven IDEA Plugin](http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-idea-plugin/)
The IDEA Plugin is used to generate files (ipr, iml, and iws) for a project so you can work on it using the IDE, IntelliJ IDEA.
Hopes that helps |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The workspace in STS/Eclipse is not automatically the same as the file structure that you have on disc in your workspace directory. You can have projects in this workspace folder or somewhere else on disc.
To get them into your project explorer (and access them from inside STS/Eclipse), you need to import them (Import Existing Projects into Workspace). Then you can select the folder where those projects are located in. In case you have those projects already in your workspace folder on disc, you can choose the workspace folder as root folder in the wizard. It will show all the projects that exist on disc in that folder and grey those out that are already imported/referenced in your workspace in Eclipse. | Probably whey you 'accidentally deleted' your project, you only deleted it from the Eclipse workspace, but not from the actual workspace folder on your hard-drive (as other people pointed out, Eclipse can arbitrarily map workspace projects to files on disk, so it is possible for a project to be 'deleted' from your Eclipse workspace but still exist on disk.
The good news is the files you deleted are actually still there.
Instead of importing your project from a zip, you may just want to import those files from the workspace folder back into your Eclipse workspace. |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Make sure it is really not in workspace, also if there aren't any other projects with the same name. If not, just delete the `.metadata` folder or create a new workspace. | the problem is that when you delete a project maybe sts only close it.
Try View Menu --> uncheck closed projects
Now you will see all closed project, simply delete it. |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The workspace in STS/Eclipse is not automatically the same as the file structure that you have on disc in your workspace directory. You can have projects in this workspace folder or somewhere else on disc.
To get them into your project explorer (and access them from inside STS/Eclipse), you need to import them (Import Existing Projects into Workspace). Then you can select the folder where those projects are located in. In case you have those projects already in your workspace folder on disc, you can choose the workspace folder as root folder in the wizard. It will show all the projects that exist on disc in that folder and grey those out that are already imported/referenced in your workspace in Eclipse. | I get this issue from time to time. Usually I just open a new workspace but sounds like you don't want to loose other projects.
I simply open the.project file in my project and change the name of the project in name tag.
Good Luck! |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The workspace in STS/Eclipse is not automatically the same as the file structure that you have on disc in your workspace directory. You can have projects in this workspace folder or somewhere else on disc.
To get them into your project explorer (and access them from inside STS/Eclipse), you need to import them (Import Existing Projects into Workspace). Then you can select the folder where those projects are located in. In case you have those projects already in your workspace folder on disc, you can choose the workspace folder as root folder in the wizard. It will show all the projects that exist on disc in that folder and grey those out that are already imported/referenced in your workspace in Eclipse. | Generally this kind of problems not occurred you can go to Project option and clean and than restart STS.
May be STS is not synched with the latest configured project. |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Probably whey you 'accidentally deleted' your project, you only deleted it from the Eclipse workspace, but not from the actual workspace folder on your hard-drive (as other people pointed out, Eclipse can arbitrarily map workspace projects to files on disk, so it is possible for a project to be 'deleted' from your Eclipse workspace but still exist on disk.
The good news is the files you deleted are actually still there.
Instead of importing your project from a zip, you may just want to import those files from the workspace folder back into your Eclipse workspace. | the problem is that when you delete a project maybe sts only close it.
Try View Menu --> uncheck closed projects
Now you will see all closed project, simply delete it. |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The workspace in STS/Eclipse is not automatically the same as the file structure that you have on disc in your workspace directory. You can have projects in this workspace folder or somewhere else on disc.
To get them into your project explorer (and access them from inside STS/Eclipse), you need to import them (Import Existing Projects into Workspace). Then you can select the folder where those projects are located in. In case you have those projects already in your workspace folder on disc, you can choose the workspace folder as root folder in the wizard. It will show all the projects that exist on disc in that folder and grey those out that are already imported/referenced in your workspace in Eclipse. | Make sure it is really not in workspace, also if there aren't any other projects with the same name. If not, just delete the `.metadata` folder or create a new workspace. |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Generally this kind of problems not occurred you can go to Project option and clean and than restart STS.
May be STS is not synched with the latest configured project. | the problem is that when you delete a project maybe sts only close it.
Try View Menu --> uncheck closed projects
Now you will see all closed project, simply delete it. |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The workspace in STS/Eclipse is not automatically the same as the file structure that you have on disc in your workspace directory. You can have projects in this workspace folder or somewhere else on disc.
To get them into your project explorer (and access them from inside STS/Eclipse), you need to import them (Import Existing Projects into Workspace). Then you can select the folder where those projects are located in. In case you have those projects already in your workspace folder on disc, you can choose the workspace folder as root folder in the wizard. It will show all the projects that exist on disc in that folder and grey those out that are already imported/referenced in your workspace in Eclipse. | When you launch Spring Tools Suite, it will ask you to **Select directory as workspace** as below:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RAdzR.png)
If the directory you selected here (i.e., workspace directory) is the same as the directory where the project that you are going to import resides, then you will get **Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace**.
Therefore, to solve the issue,
* Close Spring Tool Suite
* Create a new directory
* Launch Spring Tool Suite again
* And, select that as your workspace
* Launch the application and you would be able to import as you mentioned in your question
It solved my problem.
Hope it helps..
Happy Coding!! |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | I get this issue from time to time. Usually I just open a new workspace but sounds like you don't want to loose other projects.
I simply open the.project file in my project and change the name of the project in name tag.
Good Luck! | the problem is that when you delete a project maybe sts only close it.
Try View Menu --> uncheck closed projects
Now you will see all closed project, simply delete it. |
28,507,487 | Just by a mistake I had deleted a spring project in STS.To use it back I borrowed the same project from my friend in zip format but when I tried to import it says
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
Following is the way I tried to import
file->import->general->existing projects into worspace->select archive file
and after browse when I select the zip project
*Some projects cannot be imported because they already exist in the workspace*
and the finish button and next button are in disabled state.Please help me | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28507487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The workspace in STS/Eclipse is not automatically the same as the file structure that you have on disc in your workspace directory. You can have projects in this workspace folder or somewhere else on disc.
To get them into your project explorer (and access them from inside STS/Eclipse), you need to import them (Import Existing Projects into Workspace). Then you can select the folder where those projects are located in. In case you have those projects already in your workspace folder on disc, you can choose the workspace folder as root folder in the wizard. It will show all the projects that exist on disc in that folder and grey those out that are already imported/referenced in your workspace in Eclipse. | Check if you still have the project in folder of the workspace on disk. You may have deleted in STS, without checking 'Delete on disk'. So, the project may be still there in the workspace folder though its deleted in STS. |
11,984,312 | I am currently taking a course that gives an introduction to project planning. It is mostly about how to draw UML diagrams (blegh), but also has a few other topics.
One part in particular keeps bugging me. In the course they describe a method for going from a set of requirements to an initial class diagram, but everything about the method gives me this feeling that it is most definitely not the way to go. Let me first give an example before proceeding.
Let's consider a system that manages a greenhouse company. The company has multiple greenhouses, and every employee is assigned to his/her own greenhouse. A greenhouse has a location and a type of plant being grown in there. An employee has a name and phone number.
Here's what according to the course's method the class diagram would look like:
To me this looks like a database layout adapted for code. When I go about designing a program, I try to identify major abstractions. Like all the code that interacts with the database or the code that is responsible for the GUI are all different parts of the system. That would be what I consider to be an initial class diagram.
I simply can not imagine that this is a common way to start designing the architecture of a project. The classes look ugly, since if you take a slightly larger example the classes will be flooded with responsibilities. To me they look like data objects that have functionality to them they shouldn't have. It does not give me a clue on how to continue from here and get a general architecture going. Everything about it seems obsolete.
All I want to know if there's someone out there that can tell me if this is a common way to get a first class diagram on paper for reasons I am overlooking. | 2012/08/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11984312",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/383632/"
] | I would say it's reasonable to start with a logical model that's free of implementation constraints. That logical model is not necessarily concerned with physical implementation details (e.g. whether or not to use a database, what type of database, OS / UI choice, etc.) and thus represents just "real" business domain objects and processes. The similarity to a potential database implementation shouldn't be surprising for the simple example.
By understanding your business domain (through the logical model you've started to construct), you will be better placed to subsequently identify, for example, which architectural patterns are appropriate, what screens you need to build, and database elements to design. Possibly, there will be another part of the course that will aid you in this stage.
In practice, you will often know that you're intending to implement, say, a web-based application using MVC with a back-end database, and may look to model the implementation classes in parallel with your business items. For your course to use a method that emphasises the distinction between logical and physical stages doesn't sound unreasonable. | >
> When I go about designing a program, I try to identify major
> abstractions
>
>
>
Same principle in UML as well. You represent abstractions and their relationships and due to existing Visual Tools you can do a presentation of a system to stakeholders or even generate automatically stubs from your design. |
444,200 | I know that in a transformer the power is conserved on both sides, and hence there's no power amplification as such. That's fine!
But if I instead want only a voltage amplification, then choosing proper turns ratio and connecting the load across the secondary would serve my purpose. So can you consider it as voltage amplifier? If yes, then why is it not used as one? | 2019/06/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/444200",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/86971/"
] | Only for ideal transformers, power is conserved.
Real transformers have losses, which may be load dependent. So, in that case, the 'output' voltage is not the gain times the 'input' voltage.
For voltage amplifiers, you also want them to have unlimited (or at least large) current supply. This unlimited current is needed, so the output is not dependent to the load, i.e. the voltage should not collapse because of the load.
For transformers, this 'output' current is dependent and limited. | Amplifiers typically provide input-output isolation. Changes in output energy need not require more input energy (tho the VDD rail must support the output demands)
A transformer of course does not provide isolation. |
444,200 | I know that in a transformer the power is conserved on both sides, and hence there's no power amplification as such. That's fine!
But if I instead want only a voltage amplification, then choosing proper turns ratio and connecting the load across the secondary would serve my purpose. So can you consider it as voltage amplifier? If yes, then why is it not used as one? | 2019/06/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/444200",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/86971/"
] | It's just a subtlety of the terminology. If there's no (capability of) power amplification, then we don't call it an "amplifier" even though the output voltage might be higher than the input voltage.
As others have pointed out, there are other functional differences between transformers and amplifiers, one being that power can flow both ways through a transformer but generally only one way through an amplifier.
Finally, we already have a word for a device that can change voltages without providing power gain, so we don't need to call these things *amplifiers*. We can just call them *transformers*. | Amplifiers typically provide input-output isolation. Changes in output energy need not require more input energy (tho the VDD rail must support the output demands)
A transformer of course does not provide isolation. |
444,200 | I know that in a transformer the power is conserved on both sides, and hence there's no power amplification as such. That's fine!
But if I instead want only a voltage amplification, then choosing proper turns ratio and connecting the load across the secondary would serve my purpose. So can you consider it as voltage amplifier? If yes, then why is it not used as one? | 2019/06/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/444200",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/86971/"
] | It's just a subtlety of the terminology. If there's no (capability of) power amplification, then we don't call it an "amplifier" even though the output voltage might be higher than the input voltage.
As others have pointed out, there are other functional differences between transformers and amplifiers, one being that power can flow both ways through a transformer but generally only one way through an amplifier.
Finally, we already have a word for a device that can change voltages without providing power gain, so we don't need to call these things *amplifiers*. We can just call them *transformers*. | Only for ideal transformers, power is conserved.
Real transformers have losses, which may be load dependent. So, in that case, the 'output' voltage is not the gain times the 'input' voltage.
For voltage amplifiers, you also want them to have unlimited (or at least large) current supply. This unlimited current is needed, so the output is not dependent to the load, i.e. the voltage should not collapse because of the load.
For transformers, this 'output' current is dependent and limited. |
7,746,016 | I've been trying to make an icon that has transparency. I've tried Axialis but the documentation is crummy and the ui is somewhat inscrutable. Everytime I think I've figured out how to set transparency, it's coming in with white space.
MS documenation mentions using magenta as the background, so I also tried that and got transparency but at the price of a pink halo.
I've tried a Photoshop plugin and it came out correctly but I can't figure out how to stuff multiple sizes in there.
This must be a common problem and yet Google is not being my friend. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7746016",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/992205/"
] | Just use GIMP (<http://www.gimp.org/>). Start off with a transparent background and the size you would like. I use it for all my Android applications. | Try Evan Old's plugin for Paint.NET. YMMV.
<http://forums.getpaint.net/index.php?/topic/927-icon-cursor-and-animated-cursor-format-v37-may-2010/page-1> |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | Rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers should be allowed (they should not be rolled back).
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* | Rule changes that invalidate existing answers should be allowed (they should not be rolled back).
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | Rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers should be allowed (they should not be rolled back).
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* | Rule changes in comments are equally valid as those that have been edited into the actual post.
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | In support of allowing rule changes that invalidate existing answers
====================================================================
**Closing loopholes**
Suppose you've posted a [fastest-code](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fastest-code "show questions tagged 'fastest-code'") challenge about finding factors of integers. Suppose the description of the challenge is "You will be given a positive integer. You must output a proper factor of this integer as quickly as possible."
Now, suppose that someone answers with a submission that always returns 1. Technically, this is a valid solution to the challenge as stated. However, it is a trivial solution, and nothing of value is lost by changing the question to say "proper factor greater than 1". This does invalidate the existing solution, and it is a rule change, but it brings the rules in line with the clear intent of the poster and improves the challenge with no real loss.
Obviously, there is a fine line between closing loopholes and real changes to the rules, but we should allow closing loopholes, even if answers which exploit them have been posted. | Rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers should be allowed (they should not be rolled back).
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | Rule changes are allowed
------------------------
They're often a very bad idea, but I don't think we should forbid them, regardless of whether they invalidate answers or not.
Most of the time, rule changes are meant to improve the challenge. This can include closing loopholes as isaacg mentioned, but it can also mean just tightening or relaxing the rules slightly if they are found to allow uninteresting solutions which make the interesting ones uncompetitive, or if they are found to disallow interesting solutions.
The challenge that sparked this discussion was [this one](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/67158/8478). That's a very good example of a rule change that improves the challenge. In it's original form, brute force was allowed, which would obviously never complete for a square of any interesting size. But efficient solutions exist, and they are a lot more interesting. So adding a time limit after answers were already posted (especially ones which just created random grids until one was valid), definitely improved the question. Early uninteresting answers should not have the power to "lock" a bad challenge in its current state.
Yes, invalidated answers are frustrating, and everyone whose answer gets invalidated by a rule change is well within their rights to downvote the challenge (although *I personally find it very weird that PPCG is the only SE where you risk being downvoted for improving your post*), but if that allows the challenge to be a better challenge, then I think it's worth the change. In any case, there shouldn't be a blanket rule against changes, because I think it will lead to more abuse (by early answerers) than it will do good.
Challenge authors should still think twice (or three times) if a rule change is worth the trouble. If it invalidates a lot (or the majority) of answers, it's probably not worth it, because many of those invalid answers will remain and it will become a pain to pick out the valid ones. In that case, just learn your lesson for next time. But if it's about disallowing some boring approach that essentially breaks the challenge and has been used once or twice, then go ahead.
As for answerers whose answers are invalidated, be a good sportsman and delete (or change) your answer. And before you downvote the challenge for the rule change, consider whether your solution actually added anything valuable to it or whether the challenge isn't actually more interesting if answers like yours aren't valid any more. | Rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers should be allowed (they should not be rolled back).
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | Rule changes that invalidate existing answers should be allowed (they should not be rolled back).
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* | Rule changes in comments are equally valid as those that have been edited into the actual post.
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | In support of allowing rule changes that invalidate existing answers
====================================================================
**Closing loopholes**
Suppose you've posted a [fastest-code](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fastest-code "show questions tagged 'fastest-code'") challenge about finding factors of integers. Suppose the description of the challenge is "You will be given a positive integer. You must output a proper factor of this integer as quickly as possible."
Now, suppose that someone answers with a submission that always returns 1. Technically, this is a valid solution to the challenge as stated. However, it is a trivial solution, and nothing of value is lost by changing the question to say "proper factor greater than 1". This does invalidate the existing solution, and it is a rule change, but it brings the rules in line with the clear intent of the poster and improves the challenge with no real loss.
Obviously, there is a fine line between closing loopholes and real changes to the rules, but we should allow closing loopholes, even if answers which exploit them have been posted. | Rule changes that invalidate existing answers should be allowed (they should not be rolled back).
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | Rule changes are allowed
------------------------
They're often a very bad idea, but I don't think we should forbid them, regardless of whether they invalidate answers or not.
Most of the time, rule changes are meant to improve the challenge. This can include closing loopholes as isaacg mentioned, but it can also mean just tightening or relaxing the rules slightly if they are found to allow uninteresting solutions which make the interesting ones uncompetitive, or if they are found to disallow interesting solutions.
The challenge that sparked this discussion was [this one](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/67158/8478). That's a very good example of a rule change that improves the challenge. In it's original form, brute force was allowed, which would obviously never complete for a square of any interesting size. But efficient solutions exist, and they are a lot more interesting. So adding a time limit after answers were already posted (especially ones which just created random grids until one was valid), definitely improved the question. Early uninteresting answers should not have the power to "lock" a bad challenge in its current state.
Yes, invalidated answers are frustrating, and everyone whose answer gets invalidated by a rule change is well within their rights to downvote the challenge (although *I personally find it very weird that PPCG is the only SE where you risk being downvoted for improving your post*), but if that allows the challenge to be a better challenge, then I think it's worth the change. In any case, there shouldn't be a blanket rule against changes, because I think it will lead to more abuse (by early answerers) than it will do good.
Challenge authors should still think twice (or three times) if a rule change is worth the trouble. If it invalidates a lot (or the majority) of answers, it's probably not worth it, because many of those invalid answers will remain and it will become a pain to pick out the valid ones. In that case, just learn your lesson for next time. But if it's about disallowing some boring approach that essentially breaks the challenge and has been used once or twice, then go ahead.
As for answerers whose answers are invalidated, be a good sportsman and delete (or change) your answer. And before you downvote the challenge for the rule change, consider whether your solution actually added anything valuable to it or whether the challenge isn't actually more interesting if answers like yours aren't valid any more. | Rule changes that invalidate existing answers should be allowed (they should not be rolled back).
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | In support of allowing rule changes that invalidate existing answers
====================================================================
**Closing loopholes**
Suppose you've posted a [fastest-code](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fastest-code "show questions tagged 'fastest-code'") challenge about finding factors of integers. Suppose the description of the challenge is "You will be given a positive integer. You must output a proper factor of this integer as quickly as possible."
Now, suppose that someone answers with a submission that always returns 1. Technically, this is a valid solution to the challenge as stated. However, it is a trivial solution, and nothing of value is lost by changing the question to say "proper factor greater than 1". This does invalidate the existing solution, and it is a rule change, but it brings the rules in line with the clear intent of the poster and improves the challenge with no real loss.
Obviously, there is a fine line between closing loopholes and real changes to the rules, but we should allow closing loopholes, even if answers which exploit them have been posted. | Rule changes in comments are equally valid as those that have been edited into the actual post.
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | Rule changes are allowed
------------------------
They're often a very bad idea, but I don't think we should forbid them, regardless of whether they invalidate answers or not.
Most of the time, rule changes are meant to improve the challenge. This can include closing loopholes as isaacg mentioned, but it can also mean just tightening or relaxing the rules slightly if they are found to allow uninteresting solutions which make the interesting ones uncompetitive, or if they are found to disallow interesting solutions.
The challenge that sparked this discussion was [this one](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/67158/8478). That's a very good example of a rule change that improves the challenge. In it's original form, brute force was allowed, which would obviously never complete for a square of any interesting size. But efficient solutions exist, and they are a lot more interesting. So adding a time limit after answers were already posted (especially ones which just created random grids until one was valid), definitely improved the question. Early uninteresting answers should not have the power to "lock" a bad challenge in its current state.
Yes, invalidated answers are frustrating, and everyone whose answer gets invalidated by a rule change is well within their rights to downvote the challenge (although *I personally find it very weird that PPCG is the only SE where you risk being downvoted for improving your post*), but if that allows the challenge to be a better challenge, then I think it's worth the change. In any case, there shouldn't be a blanket rule against changes, because I think it will lead to more abuse (by early answerers) than it will do good.
Challenge authors should still think twice (or three times) if a rule change is worth the trouble. If it invalidates a lot (or the majority) of answers, it's probably not worth it, because many of those invalid answers will remain and it will become a pain to pick out the valid ones. In that case, just learn your lesson for next time. But if it's about disallowing some boring approach that essentially breaks the challenge and has been used once or twice, then go ahead.
As for answerers whose answers are invalidated, be a good sportsman and delete (or change) your answer. And before you downvote the challenge for the rule change, consider whether your solution actually added anything valuable to it or whether the challenge isn't actually more interesting if answers like yours aren't valid any more. | Rule changes in comments are equally valid as those that have been edited into the actual post.
*(Upvote if you agree, downvote if you disagree, and comment for anything else.)* |
7,777 | Related: [When is it allowable to change the rules?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1346/3808)
As noted in the linked meta post above, it's typically particularly frowned upon to significantly change the rules of a challenge after posting it. There's no hard and fast rule on this yet, so the purpose of this meta post is to enact at least some kind of **policy to determine when drastic edits should be rolled back**.
Here, we define "rule change" as not any type of edit but **any edit that causes one or more reasonable hypothetical answers to become invalid beyond repair**. Note that the "beyond repair" clause means that this *does not include* minor rule changes such as input/output format. Note that the wording of this definition also (intentionally) does not include edits that give answers *additional* liberties.
There are a few "poll-style" answers here to vote / comment on:
* [Should rule changes that don't invalidate existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7778/3808)
* [Should rule changes that invalidate one or more existing answers be allowed?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/3808)
* [Do rule changes in comments count?](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7780/3808)
Adding your own answer is encouraged, though, possibly addressing some of the following questions:
* Exactly what it says in the title: If you do think that some rule changes should be acceptable, which ones specifically and in what situations?
* If we're going with "rule changes are only allowed if they're minor enough," how do we define a "major" rule change?
* If you think the policy should be something other than something that was mentioned here, what is it, and who gets to decide which rule changes are allowed? | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7777",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3808/"
] | Rule changes are allowed
------------------------
They're often a very bad idea, but I don't think we should forbid them, regardless of whether they invalidate answers or not.
Most of the time, rule changes are meant to improve the challenge. This can include closing loopholes as isaacg mentioned, but it can also mean just tightening or relaxing the rules slightly if they are found to allow uninteresting solutions which make the interesting ones uncompetitive, or if they are found to disallow interesting solutions.
The challenge that sparked this discussion was [this one](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/67158/8478). That's a very good example of a rule change that improves the challenge. In it's original form, brute force was allowed, which would obviously never complete for a square of any interesting size. But efficient solutions exist, and they are a lot more interesting. So adding a time limit after answers were already posted (especially ones which just created random grids until one was valid), definitely improved the question. Early uninteresting answers should not have the power to "lock" a bad challenge in its current state.
Yes, invalidated answers are frustrating, and everyone whose answer gets invalidated by a rule change is well within their rights to downvote the challenge (although *I personally find it very weird that PPCG is the only SE where you risk being downvoted for improving your post*), but if that allows the challenge to be a better challenge, then I think it's worth the change. In any case, there shouldn't be a blanket rule against changes, because I think it will lead to more abuse (by early answerers) than it will do good.
Challenge authors should still think twice (or three times) if a rule change is worth the trouble. If it invalidates a lot (or the majority) of answers, it's probably not worth it, because many of those invalid answers will remain and it will become a pain to pick out the valid ones. In that case, just learn your lesson for next time. But if it's about disallowing some boring approach that essentially breaks the challenge and has been used once or twice, then go ahead.
As for answerers whose answers are invalidated, be a good sportsman and delete (or change) your answer. And before you downvote the challenge for the rule change, consider whether your solution actually added anything valuable to it or whether the challenge isn't actually more interesting if answers like yours aren't valid any more. | In support of allowing rule changes that invalidate existing answers
====================================================================
**Closing loopholes**
Suppose you've posted a [fastest-code](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fastest-code "show questions tagged 'fastest-code'") challenge about finding factors of integers. Suppose the description of the challenge is "You will be given a positive integer. You must output a proper factor of this integer as quickly as possible."
Now, suppose that someone answers with a submission that always returns 1. Technically, this is a valid solution to the challenge as stated. However, it is a trivial solution, and nothing of value is lost by changing the question to say "proper factor greater than 1". This does invalidate the existing solution, and it is a rule change, but it brings the rules in line with the clear intent of the poster and improves the challenge with no real loss.
Obviously, there is a fine line between closing loopholes and real changes to the rules, but we should allow closing loopholes, even if answers which exploit them have been posted. |
10,277,638 | Is it possible to host a .NET 4 application under a .NET 2 site?
For several reasons we have to run the main site on .NET 3.5, but there is an application written in entity framework 4, which hosted under the same domain/port.
When I try to add an application under the site (using a different .net 4.0 application pool), i get an error stating duplicate content in web.config. I have searched the net for fixes, but none of them seems to be working for me.
I am running a Windows Server 2008 R2 with IIS7.5
Any help would be appreciated. | 2012/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10277638",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/622661/"
] | No, that's not possible. An assembly compiled against .NET 4.0 must be run inside CLR 4.0. It is possible the other way around: run an assembly compiled against .NET 2.0 inside CLR 4.0. | No, the nested application will not be able to set a seperate framework version. I would suggest changing the version on the main site to v4. I don't think you should experience problems running a 3.5 app on version 4. What are your reasons for running it in 3.5? |
10,277,638 | Is it possible to host a .NET 4 application under a .NET 2 site?
For several reasons we have to run the main site on .NET 3.5, but there is an application written in entity framework 4, which hosted under the same domain/port.
When I try to add an application under the site (using a different .net 4.0 application pool), i get an error stating duplicate content in web.config. I have searched the net for fixes, but none of them seems to be working for me.
I am running a Windows Server 2008 R2 with IIS7.5
Any help would be appreciated. | 2012/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10277638",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/622661/"
] | It is possible to fix, if you carefully read Microsoft's document,
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/a99txfy5.aspx>
and
<http://www.asp.net/whitepapers/aspnet4/breaking-changes#0.1__Toc256770150> | No, the nested application will not be able to set a seperate framework version. I would suggest changing the version on the main site to v4. I don't think you should experience problems running a 3.5 app on version 4. What are your reasons for running it in 3.5? |
10,277,638 | Is it possible to host a .NET 4 application under a .NET 2 site?
For several reasons we have to run the main site on .NET 3.5, but there is an application written in entity framework 4, which hosted under the same domain/port.
When I try to add an application under the site (using a different .net 4.0 application pool), i get an error stating duplicate content in web.config. I have searched the net for fixes, but none of them seems to be working for me.
I am running a Windows Server 2008 R2 with IIS7.5
Any help would be appreciated. | 2012/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10277638",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/622661/"
] | It is possible to fix, if you carefully read Microsoft's document,
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/a99txfy5.aspx>
and
<http://www.asp.net/whitepapers/aspnet4/breaking-changes#0.1__Toc256770150> | No, that's not possible. An assembly compiled against .NET 4.0 must be run inside CLR 4.0. It is possible the other way around: run an assembly compiled against .NET 2.0 inside CLR 4.0. |
231,772 | Remodeling a kitchen. I'll be adding two new circuits dedicated to the microwave and fridge. I'll also be reconfiguring the countertops which will result in having to add another outlet to meet code for power distribution.
Haven't done any major wiring changes for a while and I'm now seeing that AFCI is required basically anywhere in a dwelling outside the bathroom. The two new circuits I'm adding will require AFCI breakers so I'm now planning to purchase those.
Since I am adding an outlet down the line to an existing series of countertop receptacles, am I required to also update this circuit to AFCI? I'm not having any luck finding an NEC reference that states this is a requirement, but I also can't find anything that dictates what might be grandfathered in certain circumstances. However, I also know that typically any changes require bringing whatever is being changed up to code so I feel like this is probably the obvious answer to the question.
How about lighting? If I add another light to a circuit serving only luminaires, do I also update that to AFCI?
The existing outlets are already GFCI protected so the only concern is adding AFCI here. Obviously, AFCI is better and I do understand the purposes of the protection it offers but the cost of upgrading half my panel due to a bunch of little changes would not be small.
Edit: I'm located in MI. I couldn't find anything in the MI IRC but I could have missed something. | 2021/08/11 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/231772",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/140252/"
] | If you are following 2014 NEC or newer, the answer would be yes, 210.12 specifies AFCI protection where branch circuit wiring is "modified, replaced, or extended". So "adding an outlet down the line" would be an extension of the branch circuit wiring.
The current NEC reference is 210.12(D)(1). I believe it was 210.12(B) in some older versions. | This is really a local jurisdiction issue.
In my city, the rule would be adding an outlet requires a permit which triggers crazy local rules. For AFCI retrofit, my building department would require all circuits servicing the room/area be retrofitted.
In my house, since the lighting circuit for kitchen also feeds family room & laundry room, I would have to fully retrofit those rooms as well. If I had an open floor plan with my kitchen open to the dining room or living room, those would also have to be fully brought to current code.
My AHJ requires AFCI breakers for dishwasher, microwave, fridge, garbage disposal. If the outlet is 5 feet or less above floor, or these items are hardwired, it needs to be AFCI/GCI combo breakers.
AFCI or GFCI outlet controls are not allowed for these items as the local building dept considers access obstructed.
The next town over which is 100 yards from my front door would only require AFCI retrofit for the actual circuits being worked on. They have no additional requirements or amendments to the NEC.
Either call your building department or call a local electrician that works in your city/county. Otherwise it is a lot of conjecture. |
11,226 | Many individuals believe they can make significant quantities of money by stock trading. Much of the financial services industry wants the public to believe that it can take our savings and, by the application of investing skill, make better returns than the market average. Much of the advertising for mutual fund investment vehicles in the UK touts superior past performance despite the (legally mandated) small print asserting that past performance is no guide to the future.
For example, a UK mutual fund house, Jupiter, describes it mission thus:
>
> We are an active fund manager seeking to add value for our clients through the delivery of investment outperformance over the medium to long term.
>
>
>
There are even two major schools of thought about *how* to achieve good returns:
* [technical analysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_analysis) which focuses on historic patterns of price movement, and
* [fundamental analysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_analysis) which focuses on analysing the underlying economic performance of the firm.
The problem is this: there is a solid body of financial theory that asserts that long term outperformance based on any form of market analysis is impossible. The [Efficient Market Hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesis) asserts:
>
> one cannot consistently achieve returns in excess of average market returns on a risk-adjusted basis, given the information available at the time the investment is made
>
>
>
(unless, it is worth adding, you have inside information on which it is illegal to trade in most markets).
[Burton Malkiel's](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_Malkiel) famous book on the topic, [A Random Walk Down Wall Street](http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street.html?id=O8x1YpBp6WYC&redir_esc=y), is a very readable introduction.
As a test of investing skill more than one experiment has been conducted pitting the professional stock pickers against random choices (often vividly illustrated by having a monkey throw darts at the Wall Street Journal to select a portfolio). Experts often don't do significantly better than random. As a [Forbes article reports](http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/03/12/why-smart-people-fail-to-beat-the-market/2/), when the Wall Street Journal did the random-selection experiment:
>
> On average, investors following the experts’ recommendations lost 3.8% on a risk‐adjusted basis over a 6‐month holding period.
>
>
>
Both the theory and this experiment seem to defy common sense. How can people who a skilled and well paid for their skill not actually consistently beat a random number generator? How can such a large industry exist when the skill they assert is impossible to demonstrate?
So the question here is: **is there evidence that experts can consistently beat the market? Are there demonstrable strategies to make returns ahead of the market average?** | 2012/10/11 | [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/11226",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3943/"
] | >
> is there evidence that experts can consistently beat the market?
>
>
>
Yes, there is. It's quoted in [the Forbes article](http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/03/12/why-smart-people-fail-to-beat-the-market/) you provide as a source.
>
> To answer this question, Fama and French compared the distribution of
> fund returns to a distribution of simulated portfolio returns formed
> with randomly selected stocks. Using a bootstrapping technique, they
> created thousands of simulated U.S. equity portfolios that selected
> stocks randomly. The range of actual mutual fund returns was then
> compared to the range of bootstrapped returns. The overlay was very
> close, which means most actual fund returns were a result of random
> stock selection and not skill.
>
>
> **There were, however, a handful of funds whose managers outperformed the bootstrapping method after adjusting for costs and risks. These
> so-called outliers may possess skill, if only they could be
> identified.**
>
>
>
Above references a research paper ["Luck Versus Skill in the Cross Section of Mutual Fund Returns](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1356021)". | There is a problem with Mutual Funds. When the market declines, some people unload the funds and the manager has to liquidate to give them their money, i.e. sell into a declining market. Conversely when markets are climbing, the managers have to invest the incoming cash into the climbing stock prices.
This is a structural disadvantage to MFs, in addition to the drag from fees.
There are 1000s of references to this problem. Here is one:
<http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Mutual_funds:_additional_costs>
Sorry I am new here and just adjusting to your rules. |
66,950 | I'm currently working on a short story in which the main character has received a device from an anonymous individual. This device *appears* to function like a regular phone. Until he realizes that he can send text messages up to 1 hour back into the past.
My question being... How would such a device (theoretically) function?
Note: Handwaving is allowed but do NOT make your entire answer one big handwave | 2017/01/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66950",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/31755/"
] | Such a device is called a tachyonic antitelephone.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone>
It relies on the existence of tachyons - particles that always go faster than light.
This Worldbuilding idea has a fine answer walking through why FTL implies time travel.
[Are there any ways to allow some form of FTL travel without allowing time travel?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/46873/are-there-any-ways-to-allow-some-form-of-ftl-travel-without-allowing-time-travel) | It's not possible
=================
Imagine this:
A phone (let's call it phone A) gets destroyed. 30 minutes later, the *device* sends a message to phone A 1 hour in the past. There is *no* way that phone A could receive that message since it already got destroyed. It can no longer receive any message ever since it got destroyed, even if that message was sent before it got destroyed. This is the same problem with time travel. You cannot bring a dead person back to life in the real world. |
66,950 | I'm currently working on a short story in which the main character has received a device from an anonymous individual. This device *appears* to function like a regular phone. Until he realizes that he can send text messages up to 1 hour back into the past.
My question being... How would such a device (theoretically) function?
Note: Handwaving is allowed but do NOT make your entire answer one big handwave | 2017/01/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66950",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/31755/"
] | Wormholes.
----------
Wormholes are hypothetical "connected black holes". In essence you have two points in spacetime which are always connected to each other, and matter and information could *potentially* pass from one to the other very quickly (apparently faster than lightspeed) without violating relativity.
In real life we don't know if these actually exist, and even if we had one we don't know any way to put something through without it being obliterated. (After all, you just threw something into *a black hole*.) But since you're writing fiction you can ignore both of those points. More importantly, it hasn't been proven impossible; it's conceivable that in the future we'll discover stable wormholes and find a way to send something through.
So suppose the creator of this telephone (a mad theoretical physicist on the Space Station who's a big fan of *Steins;Gate*) discovers a tiny, stable, traversable wormhole. He doesn't want to publish this absolutely phenomenal discovery until he's sure he really has found a wormhole. So, being mad, he decides to try a dramatic demonstration.
The wormhole mouths have happened to move relative to each other in very contrived and convenient ways in the past. Now they're just over an hour apart in time. (Relativity can do this; see the "Twin Paradox".) So our mad physicist builds small "relays" which orbits the mouths, somehow not being destroyed by the gravitational forces.
This special phone is capable of sending very short messages to the relays. When it does so, the first relay sends a signal through the wormhole in the present. The signal leaves the other mouth one hour in the past, from the sender's perspective; the second relay records it and transmits it back to the phone on Earth. And when the phone receives a message back from the relay, it sends it as a standard text message to the specified number.
The physicist tests this...and it works! He can send causality-violating messages (within the confines of [Novikov's Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle))! This is certain to win him that Nobel he deserved twenty years earlier! But then, being as absent-minded as he is mad, he accidentally loses the phone.
To anyone else picking it up, the phone seems magical. Send a text message and it arrives one hour in the past. Simple as that. This is the best method I can think of for not *blatantly* violating current physics. | It's not possible
=================
Imagine this:
A phone (let's call it phone A) gets destroyed. 30 minutes later, the *device* sends a message to phone A 1 hour in the past. There is *no* way that phone A could receive that message since it already got destroyed. It can no longer receive any message ever since it got destroyed, even if that message was sent before it got destroyed. This is the same problem with time travel. You cannot bring a dead person back to life in the real world. |
66,950 | I'm currently working on a short story in which the main character has received a device from an anonymous individual. This device *appears* to function like a regular phone. Until he realizes that he can send text messages up to 1 hour back into the past.
My question being... How would such a device (theoretically) function?
Note: Handwaving is allowed but do NOT make your entire answer one big handwave | 2017/01/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66950",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/31755/"
] | Such a device is called a tachyonic antitelephone.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone>
It relies on the existence of tachyons - particles that always go faster than light.
This Worldbuilding idea has a fine answer walking through why FTL implies time travel.
[Are there any ways to allow some form of FTL travel without allowing time travel?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/46873/are-there-any-ways-to-allow-some-form-of-ftl-travel-without-allowing-time-travel) | Wormholes.
----------
Wormholes are hypothetical "connected black holes". In essence you have two points in spacetime which are always connected to each other, and matter and information could *potentially* pass from one to the other very quickly (apparently faster than lightspeed) without violating relativity.
In real life we don't know if these actually exist, and even if we had one we don't know any way to put something through without it being obliterated. (After all, you just threw something into *a black hole*.) But since you're writing fiction you can ignore both of those points. More importantly, it hasn't been proven impossible; it's conceivable that in the future we'll discover stable wormholes and find a way to send something through.
So suppose the creator of this telephone (a mad theoretical physicist on the Space Station who's a big fan of *Steins;Gate*) discovers a tiny, stable, traversable wormhole. He doesn't want to publish this absolutely phenomenal discovery until he's sure he really has found a wormhole. So, being mad, he decides to try a dramatic demonstration.
The wormhole mouths have happened to move relative to each other in very contrived and convenient ways in the past. Now they're just over an hour apart in time. (Relativity can do this; see the "Twin Paradox".) So our mad physicist builds small "relays" which orbits the mouths, somehow not being destroyed by the gravitational forces.
This special phone is capable of sending very short messages to the relays. When it does so, the first relay sends a signal through the wormhole in the present. The signal leaves the other mouth one hour in the past, from the sender's perspective; the second relay records it and transmits it back to the phone on Earth. And when the phone receives a message back from the relay, it sends it as a standard text message to the specified number.
The physicist tests this...and it works! He can send causality-violating messages (within the confines of [Novikov's Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle))! This is certain to win him that Nobel he deserved twenty years earlier! But then, being as absent-minded as he is mad, he accidentally loses the phone.
To anyone else picking it up, the phone seems magical. Send a text message and it arrives one hour in the past. Simple as that. This is the best method I can think of for not *blatantly* violating current physics. |
94,499 | I am an international student in a interdisciplinary PhD in the social sciences.
1. My supervisor has about 60 students and does not do any advising beyond a few personal favorites.
2. My second supervisor considers me a student of the first, resents the fact that he is the expert on the subject, and as a result won't read my thesis either. This has gone on for seven years and now I must submit. I speak four European languages and my thesis is in an area which is very relevant. Right now I can t see any future for myself as there are no jobs back home.
1.What do I do about my supervisors as the PhD is graded here?
2.Can I apply for post docs/tenure track (community college is more than fine) in North America with a PhD from Germany, or do they prefer N.American PhDs? How do I go about it? I have publications.
I'd be grateful for any advice/career suggestions etc. I don't mind leaving academia but I cannot return home as there are no jobs there. | 2017/08/13 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/94499",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78397/"
] | It is not uncommon that a German professor does not give advise to their PhD students. Neither is it uncommon that the 2nd referee does not want to read your thesis. In Germany, whether your dissertation is good enough or not is mainly decided by the first advisor. If they say it's ok, then it's ok. Your advisor theirself is the chairman of the exam committee, the other members would not say "no" to him.
That is, there is no need to worry about your situation.
If I were you, I would just write up my dissertation, give it to my advisor, and ask them for advice. Then, from what I know, the advisor would find some time to read it, and tell you something to improve (they have to pretend as if they understood your thesis). Then you could do the improvements, mail the thesis to the 2nd referee. Again this guy would also tell you something to improve, you do it, and that's it. | Did your first supervisor ever say to you that he/she won't read your thesis? Why don't you try to finish writing the first draft of your thesis first and let your first supervisor to read and comment? My supervisor also is a type that doesn't do much supervising and only let me do whatever I want. But she took time to read my thesis and I finally managed to submit mine. I am not sure whether it is possible for you to apply for postdoc without PhD degree. Correct me if I am wrong. The fact that you already have publications means you will have a good time writing your thesis. |
94,499 | I am an international student in a interdisciplinary PhD in the social sciences.
1. My supervisor has about 60 students and does not do any advising beyond a few personal favorites.
2. My second supervisor considers me a student of the first, resents the fact that he is the expert on the subject, and as a result won't read my thesis either. This has gone on for seven years and now I must submit. I speak four European languages and my thesis is in an area which is very relevant. Right now I can t see any future for myself as there are no jobs back home.
1.What do I do about my supervisors as the PhD is graded here?
2.Can I apply for post docs/tenure track (community college is more than fine) in North America with a PhD from Germany, or do they prefer N.American PhDs? How do I go about it? I have publications.
I'd be grateful for any advice/career suggestions etc. I don't mind leaving academia but I cannot return home as there are no jobs there. | 2017/08/13 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/94499",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78397/"
] | It is not uncommon that a German professor does not give advise to their PhD students. Neither is it uncommon that the 2nd referee does not want to read your thesis. In Germany, whether your dissertation is good enough or not is mainly decided by the first advisor. If they say it's ok, then it's ok. Your advisor theirself is the chairman of the exam committee, the other members would not say "no" to him.
That is, there is no need to worry about your situation.
If I were you, I would just write up my dissertation, give it to my advisor, and ask them for advice. Then, from what I know, the advisor would find some time to read it, and tell you something to improve (they have to pretend as if they understood your thesis). Then you could do the improvements, mail the thesis to the 2nd referee. Again this guy would also tell you something to improve, you do it, and that's it. | I have had problems that are similar to yours.
I would say that you need to finish your PhD. The strongest thing you can have in your CV besides your publications is your degree.
Apply for Postdoc in other countries within the EU. There are many opportunities and you may get lucky. America is having difficulties with funding for Science and Humanities, but of course, you can still try there.
The situation with your advisors is terrible, but you can always ask for other people to read your dissertation, like your senior colleagues and professors. Ask for their opinion and suggestion. Make your dissertation as well written and coherent as you possibly can in this situation. It can indeed bring you some job opportunity. |
9,060,217 | I have a iPhone app and want to develop iPad app with the same name. I want to design different UI for ipad app including new features. So my question is, Will i have to make changes in iPhone app for iPad or need to create another new app for iPad ? Note: Name of both app will be same. Please explain how should i perform it. | 2012/01/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9060217",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1177466/"
] | What you describe is perfectly possible with [universal apps](http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/ipad/#documentation/iPhone/Conceptual/iPhoneOSProgrammingGuide/AdvancedAppTricks/AdvancedAppTricks.html). You will have to maintain to completely different hierachies of NIBs/Storyboards for your UI though. Controllers can be reused if you stick to the MVC pattern. | Here is a [tutorial](http://www.slideshare.net/cliffmcc/creating-a-universal-ios-application) for creating universal app(both for iPad and iPhone). Go through it |
9,060,217 | I have a iPhone app and want to develop iPad app with the same name. I want to design different UI for ipad app including new features. So my question is, Will i have to make changes in iPhone app for iPad or need to create another new app for iPad ? Note: Name of both app will be same. Please explain how should i perform it. | 2012/01/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9060217",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1177466/"
] | What you describe is perfectly possible with [universal apps](http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/ipad/#documentation/iPhone/Conceptual/iPhoneOSProgrammingGuide/AdvancedAppTricks/AdvancedAppTricks.html). You will have to maintain to completely different hierachies of NIBs/Storyboards for your UI though. Controllers can be reused if you stick to the MVC pattern. | You can use same app for iPad but you have make different UI for iPad as size of iPhone and iPad screen is different but controllers and modal classes will remain same. |
6,878,776 | What's the difference between using XS and the Inline::C module? This was mentioned by someone in [this](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6684351/when-should-you-use-xs) question and has made me curious. | 2011/07/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6878776",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/474819/"
] | Inline::C generates XS and builds the generated module. It does this at run-time, although it caches past builds.
Inline::C is possibly easier to use, but there are a few downsides. The first time it runs, it slows down startup, it requires permissions to create files at run-time, and it requires the tools to compile the module. Furthermore, it makes it harder for a sysadmin to install.
The upside is that you can grab the generated XS and eliminate Inline::C once things start shaping up. This makes it useful for prototyping. | Inline compiles the C code at the same time when your Perl is compiled, and will be recompiled every time your source code is changed. XS is compiled once and the binary is saved as a .so file like a library.
Perl is written in C so XS uses the native Perl types and subroutine mechanisms. A module using XS runs almost as efficiently as a built-in language feature. It's more difficult to do some things in Inline, and there will be a conversion step when calling or returning from your code. That being said, Inline does a good job of not recompiling when not necessary, and the conversions into and out of Inline code aren't likely to be a noticeable performance hit.
Finally, writing XS assumes that you are packaging a module. There is a lot of setup and knowledge of Perl guts and module packaging required. If you just need to call a C library from Perl, you are better off using Inline. |
38,976 | I just started working as a QA Automation Engineer to a certain company which provides ERP and CRM services. However, I recently discovered that they have no test case documentation for the testing they do, and just report bugs. I am now having a hard time to automate their tests because I have no reference, what do you think I should do? | 2019/04/30 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/38976",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/37425/"
] | Mindmap all the high-level features of the application together with business owners. Go over the map with stakeholders (e.g users, developers, managers, and sponsors). Do a risk assessment with some key people, maybe also analyze brittle areas based on defect reports.
* Write automated happy-path tests for the highest risk features first.
* Create a test-automation debt backlog, prioritize with stakeholders
* In the meantime write automated tests for past critical defects as well.
* Train developers to write automated tests for new features to stop fill the gap of missing tests. | You could tackle that from two directions. You could take the bugs and ask the people who opened the bugs how to reproduce them. There is your testcase. You can probably start automating regression tests for these bugs immediately.
Or you could just write the test cases yourself based on the documents and SUT you have. Maybe there is a business capability map for which you can write happy path tests or maybe you have user stories with acceptance criteria for which test cases can be written. Or you go through the SUT and look what it should do.
I usually take the approach that the test code is the test case and with a BDD framework you can more easily create test cases that are pretty readable and can be understood by the developers and management.
In conclusion:
Write the test cases yourself, focus on bug regression and happy path. Use a BDD framework to write test cases. Get help from people who know the features and created the bugs.
See also: [xunitpatterns article.](http://xunitpatterns.com/TestAutomationRoadmap.html) |
38,976 | I just started working as a QA Automation Engineer to a certain company which provides ERP and CRM services. However, I recently discovered that they have no test case documentation for the testing they do, and just report bugs. I am now having a hard time to automate their tests because I have no reference, what do you think I should do? | 2019/04/30 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/38976",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/37425/"
] | You could tackle that from two directions. You could take the bugs and ask the people who opened the bugs how to reproduce them. There is your testcase. You can probably start automating regression tests for these bugs immediately.
Or you could just write the test cases yourself based on the documents and SUT you have. Maybe there is a business capability map for which you can write happy path tests or maybe you have user stories with acceptance criteria for which test cases can be written. Or you go through the SUT and look what it should do.
I usually take the approach that the test code is the test case and with a BDD framework you can more easily create test cases that are pretty readable and can be understood by the developers and management.
In conclusion:
Write the test cases yourself, focus on bug regression and happy path. Use a BDD framework to write test cases. Get help from people who know the features and created the bugs.
See also: [xunitpatterns article.](http://xunitpatterns.com/TestAutomationRoadmap.html) | Test Automation is not about having or not having test cases, which you can automate. This is about you deciding on **test automation strategy**. I wrote a [blog post](http://testretreat.com/2019/04/15/approach-to-test-automation/), which has several links and ideas where to start. Main idea is that you start with strategy: what do you want to automate, what kind of information you want to collect, how will you know that you automated the right thing. If you automate without strategy, you are building technical debt. I hope it helps. |
38,976 | I just started working as a QA Automation Engineer to a certain company which provides ERP and CRM services. However, I recently discovered that they have no test case documentation for the testing they do, and just report bugs. I am now having a hard time to automate their tests because I have no reference, what do you think I should do? | 2019/04/30 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/38976",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/37425/"
] | You could tackle that from two directions. You could take the bugs and ask the people who opened the bugs how to reproduce them. There is your testcase. You can probably start automating regression tests for these bugs immediately.
Or you could just write the test cases yourself based on the documents and SUT you have. Maybe there is a business capability map for which you can write happy path tests or maybe you have user stories with acceptance criteria for which test cases can be written. Or you go through the SUT and look what it should do.
I usually take the approach that the test code is the test case and with a BDD framework you can more easily create test cases that are pretty readable and can be understood by the developers and management.
In conclusion:
Write the test cases yourself, focus on bug regression and happy path. Use a BDD framework to write test cases. Get help from people who know the features and created the bugs.
See also: [xunitpatterns article.](http://xunitpatterns.com/TestAutomationRoadmap.html) | As detailed in
<https://sqa.stackexchange.com/a/38917/8992>
* Learn about the domain
* Capture the existing functionality using a tool such as Cucumber or RSpec to document it
* Make real tests described in English
* Create Smoke, Happy and Sad cases |
38,976 | I just started working as a QA Automation Engineer to a certain company which provides ERP and CRM services. However, I recently discovered that they have no test case documentation for the testing they do, and just report bugs. I am now having a hard time to automate their tests because I have no reference, what do you think I should do? | 2019/04/30 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/38976",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/37425/"
] | Mindmap all the high-level features of the application together with business owners. Go over the map with stakeholders (e.g users, developers, managers, and sponsors). Do a risk assessment with some key people, maybe also analyze brittle areas based on defect reports.
* Write automated happy-path tests for the highest risk features first.
* Create a test-automation debt backlog, prioritize with stakeholders
* In the meantime write automated tests for past critical defects as well.
* Train developers to write automated tests for new features to stop fill the gap of missing tests. | Test Automation is not about having or not having test cases, which you can automate. This is about you deciding on **test automation strategy**. I wrote a [blog post](http://testretreat.com/2019/04/15/approach-to-test-automation/), which has several links and ideas where to start. Main idea is that you start with strategy: what do you want to automate, what kind of information you want to collect, how will you know that you automated the right thing. If you automate without strategy, you are building technical debt. I hope it helps. |
38,976 | I just started working as a QA Automation Engineer to a certain company which provides ERP and CRM services. However, I recently discovered that they have no test case documentation for the testing they do, and just report bugs. I am now having a hard time to automate their tests because I have no reference, what do you think I should do? | 2019/04/30 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/38976",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/37425/"
] | Mindmap all the high-level features of the application together with business owners. Go over the map with stakeholders (e.g users, developers, managers, and sponsors). Do a risk assessment with some key people, maybe also analyze brittle areas based on defect reports.
* Write automated happy-path tests for the highest risk features first.
* Create a test-automation debt backlog, prioritize with stakeholders
* In the meantime write automated tests for past critical defects as well.
* Train developers to write automated tests for new features to stop fill the gap of missing tests. | As detailed in
<https://sqa.stackexchange.com/a/38917/8992>
* Learn about the domain
* Capture the existing functionality using a tool such as Cucumber or RSpec to document it
* Make real tests described in English
* Create Smoke, Happy and Sad cases |
9,480 | I hear phrases like
>
> I very almost fell over!
>
>
>
often and to me they sound awkward. Is the word, "very", wrong, just superfluous or completely valid? Should this wording be avoided? | 2011/01/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9480",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3272/"
] | You can say
>
> "I very nearly fell over!"
>
>
>
but to say
>
> "I very almost fell over!"
>
>
>
will brand you as very nearly a beginning speaker of English. This is a bit harsh for English learners, since *nearly* and *almost* mean almost the same thing. But that's how it goes sometimes. | Consider the relevant definitions of the adverbs, *very* and *almost*, from the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition):
>
> * **very** — in a high degree
> * **almost** — not quite; very nearly
>
>
>
Now, it is standard to modify one adverb with another. Examples:
>
> * *very*: He dragged the chair very slowly across the room.
> * *so*: Why must she leave so soon?
> * *almost:* We are almost there.
> * *too:* By the time we got there, we knew we'd come too late.
>
>
>
In your example, however, *very* and *almost* modify *over*. There are certainly several instances in English where two adverbs (modifiers) modify a third. Examples:
>
> * *so very:* Why must she go so very fast?
> * *almost too:* She hit me almost too hard; I nearly passed out.
> * *far too:* You went far too easy on her.
>
>
>
Some other constructions, especially those containing *very* and *so*, could be considered colloquial and not suitable in formal writing:
>
> * *so very:* That was so very good!
> * *way too:* His speech was way too boring! (Actually informal)
>
>
>
Now, the construction, *very almost* is probably the most unidiomatic of these informal expressions, especially considering the fact that *very* is already in the definition of *almost*:
>
> * I *almost* fell over.
> * I *very nearly* fell over.
> * I *very almost* fell over. [?]
> * I *very, very nearly* fell over. [Better, but overly informal]
>
>
>
These days, the overuse of *very* is rightly frowned upon. It is not a bad idea to stay away from *very* and try to use more descriptive language. Certainly, use *very* as often as you want, but note that *very almost* is quite unidiomatic in regular formal and semi-formal usage. It may well be more of a regionalism than anything else. |
9,480 | I hear phrases like
>
> I very almost fell over!
>
>
>
often and to me they sound awkward. Is the word, "very", wrong, just superfluous or completely valid? Should this wording be avoided? | 2011/01/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9480",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3272/"
] | You can say
>
> "I very nearly fell over!"
>
>
>
but to say
>
> "I very almost fell over!"
>
>
>
will brand you as very nearly a beginning speaker of English. This is a bit harsh for English learners, since *nearly* and *almost* mean almost the same thing. But that's how it goes sometimes. | I have never heard "very almost", and would find it odd.
Which makes me wonder if you are in another part of the world, where perhaps it is more common? |
9,480 | I hear phrases like
>
> I very almost fell over!
>
>
>
often and to me they sound awkward. Is the word, "very", wrong, just superfluous or completely valid? Should this wording be avoided? | 2011/01/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9480",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3272/"
] | You can say
>
> "I very nearly fell over!"
>
>
>
but to say
>
> "I very almost fell over!"
>
>
>
will brand you as very nearly a beginning speaker of English. This is a bit harsh for English learners, since *nearly* and *almost* mean almost the same thing. But that's how it goes sometimes. | yes!! it is wrong to use "very almost" together. It may be accepted colloquially in informal conversations but it is not correct
In general "very" would add value to the noun/ action in question.
She runs very fast
i like her very much
He is very talented
"Almost" would more appropriately describe the "status" of the current action/ noun
She almost made it to the list of Winners
I almost have him the money before i realized something was wrong... |
9,480 | I hear phrases like
>
> I very almost fell over!
>
>
>
often and to me they sound awkward. Is the word, "very", wrong, just superfluous or completely valid? Should this wording be avoided? | 2011/01/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9480",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3272/"
] | You can say
>
> "I very nearly fell over!"
>
>
>
but to say
>
> "I very almost fell over!"
>
>
>
will brand you as very nearly a beginning speaker of English. This is a bit harsh for English learners, since *nearly* and *almost* mean almost the same thing. But that's how it goes sometimes. | I would consider the use of 'very' as shown in these examples to be superfluous and redundant. Certainly the use of 'very almost' together not only sounds wrong but is grammatically incorrect. In the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary which I use for my students, various examples are given; one has to be extremely careful in the use of 'very' and one should note that 'very' should not be used with adjectives and adverbs that alrady have an extreme meaning although 'very' can be used to emphasise superlative adjectives however, the inclusion of 'much' or 'very much' would be preferable. This perhaps is where the confusion lies. |
9,480 | I hear phrases like
>
> I very almost fell over!
>
>
>
often and to me they sound awkward. Is the word, "very", wrong, just superfluous or completely valid? Should this wording be avoided? | 2011/01/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9480",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3272/"
] | Consider the relevant definitions of the adverbs, *very* and *almost*, from the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition):
>
> * **very** — in a high degree
> * **almost** — not quite; very nearly
>
>
>
Now, it is standard to modify one adverb with another. Examples:
>
> * *very*: He dragged the chair very slowly across the room.
> * *so*: Why must she leave so soon?
> * *almost:* We are almost there.
> * *too:* By the time we got there, we knew we'd come too late.
>
>
>
In your example, however, *very* and *almost* modify *over*. There are certainly several instances in English where two adverbs (modifiers) modify a third. Examples:
>
> * *so very:* Why must she go so very fast?
> * *almost too:* She hit me almost too hard; I nearly passed out.
> * *far too:* You went far too easy on her.
>
>
>
Some other constructions, especially those containing *very* and *so*, could be considered colloquial and not suitable in formal writing:
>
> * *so very:* That was so very good!
> * *way too:* His speech was way too boring! (Actually informal)
>
>
>
Now, the construction, *very almost* is probably the most unidiomatic of these informal expressions, especially considering the fact that *very* is already in the definition of *almost*:
>
> * I *almost* fell over.
> * I *very nearly* fell over.
> * I *very almost* fell over. [?]
> * I *very, very nearly* fell over. [Better, but overly informal]
>
>
>
These days, the overuse of *very* is rightly frowned upon. It is not a bad idea to stay away from *very* and try to use more descriptive language. Certainly, use *very* as often as you want, but note that *very almost* is quite unidiomatic in regular formal and semi-formal usage. It may well be more of a regionalism than anything else. | I have never heard "very almost", and would find it odd.
Which makes me wonder if you are in another part of the world, where perhaps it is more common? |
9,480 | I hear phrases like
>
> I very almost fell over!
>
>
>
often and to me they sound awkward. Is the word, "very", wrong, just superfluous or completely valid? Should this wording be avoided? | 2011/01/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9480",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3272/"
] | Consider the relevant definitions of the adverbs, *very* and *almost*, from the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition):
>
> * **very** — in a high degree
> * **almost** — not quite; very nearly
>
>
>
Now, it is standard to modify one adverb with another. Examples:
>
> * *very*: He dragged the chair very slowly across the room.
> * *so*: Why must she leave so soon?
> * *almost:* We are almost there.
> * *too:* By the time we got there, we knew we'd come too late.
>
>
>
In your example, however, *very* and *almost* modify *over*. There are certainly several instances in English where two adverbs (modifiers) modify a third. Examples:
>
> * *so very:* Why must she go so very fast?
> * *almost too:* She hit me almost too hard; I nearly passed out.
> * *far too:* You went far too easy on her.
>
>
>
Some other constructions, especially those containing *very* and *so*, could be considered colloquial and not suitable in formal writing:
>
> * *so very:* That was so very good!
> * *way too:* His speech was way too boring! (Actually informal)
>
>
>
Now, the construction, *very almost* is probably the most unidiomatic of these informal expressions, especially considering the fact that *very* is already in the definition of *almost*:
>
> * I *almost* fell over.
> * I *very nearly* fell over.
> * I *very almost* fell over. [?]
> * I *very, very nearly* fell over. [Better, but overly informal]
>
>
>
These days, the overuse of *very* is rightly frowned upon. It is not a bad idea to stay away from *very* and try to use more descriptive language. Certainly, use *very* as often as you want, but note that *very almost* is quite unidiomatic in regular formal and semi-formal usage. It may well be more of a regionalism than anything else. | yes!! it is wrong to use "very almost" together. It may be accepted colloquially in informal conversations but it is not correct
In general "very" would add value to the noun/ action in question.
She runs very fast
i like her very much
He is very talented
"Almost" would more appropriately describe the "status" of the current action/ noun
She almost made it to the list of Winners
I almost have him the money before i realized something was wrong... |
9,480 | I hear phrases like
>
> I very almost fell over!
>
>
>
often and to me they sound awkward. Is the word, "very", wrong, just superfluous or completely valid? Should this wording be avoided? | 2011/01/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9480",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3272/"
] | Consider the relevant definitions of the adverbs, *very* and *almost*, from the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition):
>
> * **very** — in a high degree
> * **almost** — not quite; very nearly
>
>
>
Now, it is standard to modify one adverb with another. Examples:
>
> * *very*: He dragged the chair very slowly across the room.
> * *so*: Why must she leave so soon?
> * *almost:* We are almost there.
> * *too:* By the time we got there, we knew we'd come too late.
>
>
>
In your example, however, *very* and *almost* modify *over*. There are certainly several instances in English where two adverbs (modifiers) modify a third. Examples:
>
> * *so very:* Why must she go so very fast?
> * *almost too:* She hit me almost too hard; I nearly passed out.
> * *far too:* You went far too easy on her.
>
>
>
Some other constructions, especially those containing *very* and *so*, could be considered colloquial and not suitable in formal writing:
>
> * *so very:* That was so very good!
> * *way too:* His speech was way too boring! (Actually informal)
>
>
>
Now, the construction, *very almost* is probably the most unidiomatic of these informal expressions, especially considering the fact that *very* is already in the definition of *almost*:
>
> * I *almost* fell over.
> * I *very nearly* fell over.
> * I *very almost* fell over. [?]
> * I *very, very nearly* fell over. [Better, but overly informal]
>
>
>
These days, the overuse of *very* is rightly frowned upon. It is not a bad idea to stay away from *very* and try to use more descriptive language. Certainly, use *very* as often as you want, but note that *very almost* is quite unidiomatic in regular formal and semi-formal usage. It may well be more of a regionalism than anything else. | I would consider the use of 'very' as shown in these examples to be superfluous and redundant. Certainly the use of 'very almost' together not only sounds wrong but is grammatically incorrect. In the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary which I use for my students, various examples are given; one has to be extremely careful in the use of 'very' and one should note that 'very' should not be used with adjectives and adverbs that alrady have an extreme meaning although 'very' can be used to emphasise superlative adjectives however, the inclusion of 'much' or 'very much' would be preferable. This perhaps is where the confusion lies. |
21,093 | In the *Supernatural* universe burying your photo with some hoodoo items at a crossroads summons a demon, said demon offers you a deal normally offers you a deal.
>
> "You can have that thing you wanted, and in exchange for your soul in ten years.
>
>
>
What if you die early? Does your soul go to hell anyway? Do demons prefer a soul ripped from its mortal coil, or does it not matter to them? | 2012/07/26 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/21093",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/3804/"
] | Yes it happens in one episode. Crowley gets furious with a demon who had made this kind of deal. He actually says:
>
> *This isn't Wall Street, this is Hell. We have a little something called integrity.*
>
>
>
[Link to YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNAvGfh-Uvg)
If the human who did the deal dies before the deal time, the owner of the contract decides what to do; usually, they take the soul.
However the contract could also have a clause for such an eventuality. | The demons don't promise you'll live for 10 years, unless that's specifically part of the deal. But as can be seen in a recent episode, they strongly discourage their own from cheating and killing those with whom deals are made... it's considered bad for business. |
21,093 | In the *Supernatural* universe burying your photo with some hoodoo items at a crossroads summons a demon, said demon offers you a deal normally offers you a deal.
>
> "You can have that thing you wanted, and in exchange for your soul in ten years.
>
>
>
What if you die early? Does your soul go to hell anyway? Do demons prefer a soul ripped from its mortal coil, or does it not matter to them? | 2012/07/26 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/21093",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/3804/"
] | The demons don't promise you'll live for 10 years, unless that's specifically part of the deal. But as can be seen in a recent episode, they strongly discourage their own from cheating and killing those with whom deals are made... it's considered bad for business. | They would be sent to Hell early if the demon holding their contract takes their soul. Most of the time that's the case.
But sometimes, however, if the deed the crossroads demon promised as part of the deal is not fulfilled and the owner of deal dies, then the soul would not be taken to Hell. |
21,093 | In the *Supernatural* universe burying your photo with some hoodoo items at a crossroads summons a demon, said demon offers you a deal normally offers you a deal.
>
> "You can have that thing you wanted, and in exchange for your soul in ten years.
>
>
>
What if you die early? Does your soul go to hell anyway? Do demons prefer a soul ripped from its mortal coil, or does it not matter to them? | 2012/07/26 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/21093",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/3804/"
] | Yes it happens in one episode. Crowley gets furious with a demon who had made this kind of deal. He actually says:
>
> *This isn't Wall Street, this is Hell. We have a little something called integrity.*
>
>
>
[Link to YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNAvGfh-Uvg)
If the human who did the deal dies before the deal time, the owner of the contract decides what to do; usually, they take the soul.
However the contract could also have a clause for such an eventuality. | They would be sent to Hell early if the demon holding their contract takes their soul. Most of the time that's the case.
But sometimes, however, if the deed the crossroads demon promised as part of the deal is not fulfilled and the owner of deal dies, then the soul would not be taken to Hell. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.