Talk:568: Well 2 - Revision history

42.book.addict at 16:43, 5 November 2024

2024-11-05T16:43:42Z

172.70.134.137: sorry it was bothering me

2021-09-12T21:49:05Z

sorry it was bothering me

172.68.50.32 at 17:45, 26 August 2019

2019-08-26T17:45:30Z

108.162.254.181 at 07:59, 9 July 2015

2015-07-09T07:59:29Z

173.245.56.171 at 21:00, 7 April 2015

2015-04-07T21:00:56Z

Weatherlawyer at 14:26, 30 January 2015

2015-01-30T14:26:59Z

Weatherlawyer at 14:25, 30 January 2015

2015-01-30T14:25:50Z

173.245.48.120 at 09:00, 20 January 2015

2015-01-20T09:00:34Z

Pudder at 08:51, 11 November 2014

2014-11-11T08:51:50Z

173.245.55.72 at 02:35, 18 March 2014

2014-03-18T02:35:29Z

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :Some sort of a warm wax jar that will take an imprint of sound-waves that you can collect ideas in. With enough jars you could explain the idea as you go -even include problem solving with each step.
 :It just requires some sort of mechanism to read it back later. And something to cool the wax and keep it solid until needed.
-::I think that is what comments are for (unless you're being sarcastic, in which case "ha ha!")21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
+::I think that is what comments are for (unless you're being sarcastic, in which case "ha ha!")21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 :I changed the interpretation of the programming language part to mean the communication problem between programmer and compiler, rather than between programmer and others. I take it from 173.245.48.120 that I am not the only one, feeling that this is more what is meant here. --SomebodyFromTheInternet 07:38, 9 July 2015

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Could the money be a refernce to [[313: Insomnia]]? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.72|173.245.55.72]] 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
-Your IP adress starts with the same digits. 17:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
+:Your IP address starts with the same digits. 17:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 The explanation has this line: "Maybe Megan still thinks the well really works, since she wishes him to get out." I really don't think that is the implied meaning. To me it is pretty clear (and backed up by the title text) that Mike is actually down the well. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ::I think that is what comments are for (unless you're being sarcastic, in which case "ha ha!")21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
-:I changed the interpretation of the proramming language part to mean the communication problem between programmer and compiler, rather than between programmer and others. I take it from 173.245.48.120 that I am not the only one, feeling that this is more what is ment here. --SomebodyFromTheInternet 07:38, 9 July 2015
+:I changed the interpretation of the programming language part to mean the communication problem between programmer and compiler, rather than between programmer and others. I take it from 173.245.48.120 that I am not the only one, feeling that this is more what is meant here. --SomebodyFromTheInternet 07:38, 9 July 2015

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 :Not necessarily; maybe some people threw quarters, dimes or nickels? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.29|173.245.52.29]] 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 Could the money be a refernce to [[313: Insomnia]]? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.72|173.245.55.72]] 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 The explanation has this line: "Maybe Megan still thinks the well really works, since she wishes him to get out." I really don't think that is the implied meaning. To me it is pretty clear (and backed up by the title text) that Mike is actually down the well. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:59, 9 July 2015
Line 11:		Line 11:
	::I think that is what comments are for (unless you're being sarcastic, in which case "ha ha!")21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)		::I think that is what comments are for (unless you're being sarcastic, in which case "ha ha!")21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
	[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
		+	:I changed the interpretation of the proramming language part to mean the communication problem between programmer and compiler, rather than between programmer and others. I take it from 173.245.48.120 that I am not the only one, feeling that this is more what is ment here. --SomebodyFromTheInternet 07:38, 9 July 2015

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :Some sort of a warm wax jar that will take an imprint of sound-waves that you can collect ideas in. With enough jars you could explain the idea as you go -even include problem solving with each step.
 :It just requires some sort of mechanism to read it back later. And something to cool the wax and keep it solid until needed.
+::I think that is what comments are for (unless you're being sarcastic, in which case "ha ha!")21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 The explanation above interprets panel #2 as meaning that no programming language will ever be '''self-documenting''' (inherently clear to the reader).  I don't think that's what it means, and furthermore think that self-documenting code plausibly could exist (at least, I don't see why it would be impossible).  Instead, I took panel #2 to mean that no programming language will ever allow you to be vague about what you want the program to do:  writing a program inherently involves specifying in exacting detail every single thing the program should do in every possible situation, and no possible change in the language can ever eliminate that fundamental difficulty. (I feel that non-programmers generally fail to appreciate the staggering level of ''precision'' that programming requires.) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.120|173.245.48.120]] 09:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 :What you need to do is invent audio.
-:Some sort of a warm wax jar that ill take an imprint of sound-waves that you can collect ideas in. With enough jars you could explain the idea as you go -even include problem solving as you go.
+:Some sort of a warm wax jar that will take an imprint of sound-waves that you can collect ideas in. With enough jars you could explain the idea as you go -even include problem solving with each step.
 :It just requires some sort of mechanism to read it back later. And something to cool the wax and keep it solid until needed.
-[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 14:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
+[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 30 January 2015
Line 6:		Line 6:

	The explanation above interprets panel #2 as meaning that no programming language will ever be '''self-documenting''' (inherently clear to the reader). I don't think that's what it means, and furthermore think that self-documenting code plausibly could exist (at least, I don't see why it would be impossible). Instead, I took panel #2 to mean that no programming language will ever allow you to be vague about what you want the program to do: writing a program inherently involves specifying in exacting detail every single thing the program should do in every possible situation, and no possible change in the language can ever eliminate that fundamental difficulty. (I feel that non-programmers generally fail to appreciate the staggering level of ''precision'' that programming requires.) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.120\|173.245.48.120]] 09:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)		The explanation above interprets panel #2 as meaning that no programming language will ever be '''self-documenting''' (inherently clear to the reader). I don't think that's what it means, and furthermore think that self-documenting code plausibly could exist (at least, I don't see why it would be impossible). Instead, I took panel #2 to mean that no programming language will ever allow you to be vague about what you want the program to do: writing a program inherently involves specifying in exacting detail every single thing the program should do in every possible situation, and no possible change in the language can ever eliminate that fundamental difficulty. (I feel that non-programmers generally fail to appreciate the staggering level of ''precision'' that programming requires.) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.120\|173.245.48.120]] 09:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
		+	:What you need to do is invent audio.
		+	:Some sort of a warm wax jar that ill take an imprint of sound-waves that you can collect ideas in. With enough jars you could explain the idea as you go -even include problem solving as you go.
		+	:
		+	:It just requires some sort of mechanism to read it back later. And something to cool the wax and keep it solid until needed.
		+
		+	[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 14:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 20 January 2015
Line 4:		Line 4:

	The explanation has this line: "Maybe Megan still thinks the well really works, since she wishes him to get out." I really don't think that is the implied meaning. To me it is pretty clear (and backed up by the title text) that Mike is actually down the well. --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)		The explanation has this line: "Maybe Megan still thinks the well really works, since she wishes him to get out." I really don't think that is the implied meaning. To me it is pretty clear (and backed up by the title text) that Mike is actually down the well. --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	The explanation above interprets panel #2 as meaning that no programming language will ever be '''self-documenting''' (inherently clear to the reader). I don't think that's what it means, and furthermore think that self-documenting code plausibly could exist (at least, I don't see why it would be impossible). Instead, I took panel #2 to mean that no programming language will ever allow you to be vague about what you want the program to do: writing a program inherently involves specifying in exacting detail every single thing the program should do in every possible situation, and no possible change in the language can ever eliminate that fundamental difficulty. (I feel that non-programmers generally fail to appreciate the staggering level of ''precision'' that programming requires.) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.120\|173.245.48.120]] 09:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:51, 11 November 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Not necessarily; maybe some people threw quarters, dimes or nickels? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.29\|173.245.52.29]] 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)		:Not necessarily; maybe some people threw quarters, dimes or nickels? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.29\|173.245.52.29]] 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
	Could the money be a refernce to [[313: Insomnia]]? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.72\|173.245.55.72]] 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)		Could the money be a refernce to [[313: Insomnia]]? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.72\|173.245.55.72]] 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	The explanation has this line: "Maybe Megan still thinks the well really works, since she wishes him to get out." I really don't think that is the implied meaning. To me it is pretty clear (and backed up by the title text) that Mike is actually down the well. --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 18 March 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	...1,372 people??? [[User:Greyson\|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson\|talk]]) 20:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)		...1,372 people??? [[User:Greyson\|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson\|talk]]) 20:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
	:Not necessarily; maybe some people threw quarters, dimes or nickels? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.29\|173.245.52.29]] 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)		:Not necessarily; maybe some people threw quarters, dimes or nickels? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.29\|173.245.52.29]] 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
		+	Could the money be a refernce to [[313: Insomnia]]? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.72\|173.245.55.72]] 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)