During the pandemic any degree of effectiveness would save lives, so emergency approval was justified.
What? Pretty sure the requirement of effectiveness was at least 70%, and the approved vaccines had a >90% effectiveness. Obviously as the virus mutated the effectiveness nosedived, but they were very effective against the original strain. (edit: Effectiveness versus getting infected at all, not against serious illness and death, which remains good)
The 5GB free space of my OneDrive is filled with game saves in the documents folder. You can't exclude directories there from being backed up. Good job.
It's not supporting Hamas to point out that Israel is doing horrible things.
What if they write a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track your IP address?
Putting Ctrl in the home row by replacing the useless Caps-Lock is sufficient for me .
Alt is easily reached with the thumbs and shift is already close enough to the home row, with shift-ctrl using both pinkies.
Don't worry, the good bible has the answer.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Your understanding is that in one of the countries with the least difference between rich and poor only the rich can afford cars?
Steam is a better product, but you give less money to the developers of the actual game. Unless it has Steam exclusives (e.g. Steam workshop) I would rather buy wherever I give the devs most money.
Yes, those are all unreasonably high, which is why they have so many billions of dollars in profit. The cost of running their services is a pittance compared to their revenues.
You could make the same argument for voting. What does your little drop in the vote bucket matter? Do you believe voting is a waste of time too?
Some developers seem to enjoy making their code obscenely difficult to understand, either because it actually makes sense to them that way, or because it makes them feel smarter.
Be wary about this mindset. This type of explanation sets you up for conflicts with existing developers. Several times I've seen developers coming into a team and complain about the code, creating conflicts that can last the entire working relationship for no good reason.
Much of the time the people who constantly work with code are already aware of the problems and may not be happy with it, but there's no time or big benefit in improving working code. Or it's complicated for good reasons which may not be immediately apparent. (ie. inherent complexity).
Here are a couple of benign reasons which probably will serve you much better.
It's much more difficult and time consuming to make code that is easy to understand. Even in open source, there's a limited amount of time to spend on any particular thing. This explanation is like a variation of Twain's "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.", or more abrasively Hanlon's razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ~~stupidity~~ time pressure".
When writing the code, the developer has the entire context of his thought process available. You don't have that, and that's also the reason why your own code can make no sense a while later. Also it's just much harder to read code than to write it.
"Latin music superstar Nicky Jam. You know Nicky? She's HOT!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qK4PfqIHAk