It’s in Kotlin and some other languages. C# has it but there it’s actually A ?? B.

It’s a shorthand for writing this:

variable = if (input != null) input else default

This is equivalent:

variable = input ?: default

“Show all posts from newest to oldest” is an algorithm.

“Shows random 10 posts, unordered” is an algorithm.

It’s not possible to show a list of items without an algorithm. You may of course take issue with what the algorithm is, but you can’t not have one.

It’s a shorthand for writing this:

variable = if (input != null) input else default

This is equivalent:

variable = input ?: default

The answers confusing it with the ternary operator are wrong.

Because it’s not one. Ternary operator is A ? B : C, Elvis operator is A ?: B. The same two characters are involved, but both the syntax and effect is different.

The process of throwing ideas back and forth usually doesn’t include just choosing one, but generating ideas as jumping off points, usually with some existing concept in mind. Talking with friends, looking at other projects, searching for inspiration online and in the real world, and now also generating some more ideas with an LLM to add to the mix. Using one source and just picking a suggestion probably won’t get you a good result.

Can’t agree

And yet virtually all of software has names that took some thought, creativity, and/or have some interesting history. Like the domain name of your Lemmy instance. Or Lemmy.

And people working on something generally want to be proud of their project and not name it the first thing that comes to mind, but take some time to decide on a name.

Off topic, but it always felt weird to me that “collaborator” is a negative term, but “collaboration” is generally positive.

Yes, but for some tasks mistakes don’t really matter, like “come up with names for my project that does X”. No wrong answers here really, so an LLM is useful.

I’m not saying ignore it, it’s a valid reason to not like the game, like any other subjective reason.

I’m saying calling the game “Pokemon with guns” is dismissive of what the game is. It’s like calling Minecraft “Rust with animal husbandry”, which completely misses what the game is about.

People say “Pokemon with guns” as if that was some kind of core gameplay. You can play through the game without ever using them. It’s a small feature, that absolutely is there, but reducing the game to that is missing the forest for the trees.

It’s an open world crafting base building game to enjoy with co-op, that has catchable creatures like Pokemon. There is no Pokemon game that fits this niche. The guns are not important to what the game is.

Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.

Fair enough. Yeah, I never thought of open and closed source as two exclusive options, but two of many.

I myself publish an application which isn’t open source, but I publish the source code, as I believe my users have the right to know what runs on their computer, and have the freedom to audit, modify, and compile their own builds if they so wish. But I don’t want someone to take and resell my application. I have yet to encounter someone calling my app closed source, but I can see how someone could.

I am not in the US. But the purpose is gaining credit score and rewards, at no cost.

Agree 100%

To make it more specific I guess, what’s the problem with that? It’s like having a “people living on boats” and “people with no long term address”. You could include the former in the latter, but then you are just conveying less information.

I use my credit card all the time, and it’s set to auto pay off all of it every month, so there is never any interest charged. It basically delays the time my money leaves my bank account from the time of purchase to up to a month later, with no downside, while building credit history. The interest may be 300%, I don’t care because I’m never charged it.

I am not aware of any definition of closed source published by OSI.

Closed source (or proprietary software) means computer programs whose source code is not published.

It’s not closed source, since the source is publicly published. It’s source available.