Every kid in the world understands the concept of 3D games, Minecraft, etc. That's a perfect vehicle to begin breaking it down into relevant simple math concepts.
I think what he's saying is from a production standpoint, the new feature is feature-flagged, and that feature flag has the feature disabled. From a test environment standpoint, you can then enable that feature flag/combination of feature flags, test until your heart is content, and only enable in prod if things go pear-shaped. And if they do, well...it can be as simple as turning that feature flag back to disabled, unless state changes prevent that.
It's obviously possible that there's an effective development process in here somewhere that I just haven't come across myself, but I still don't see it.
For a feature flag to be useful compared to the typical setup where you have a feature branch and then rebase that onto master from time to time until you're ready to do a fast-forward merge, you would need to be testing multiple features concurrently before any of them is merged back to master.
Testing all possible combinations of unmerged features in development is an exponentially difficult problem, so surely no-one is doing that. However, even testing selected combinations still requires someone to be aware of everything that is going on in enough technical detail to highlight potential trouble areas in time to take useful action that would become more difficult once some of those features start to get merged in.
Assuming you have a large enough project that co-ordinating different ongoing development work isn't just handled via informal discussions anyway, that would mean someone has to be identifying risky combinations that could benefit from testing in advance, and someone has to be responsible for doing that testing, and someone has to be responsible for addressing any issues that are discovered as a result. Does anyone here work in a development group that actually does this?
Meanwhile, the cost of using feature flags routinely is clear: every time you do any significant development work, you have to bracket all affected code with a new flag, and someone has to coordinate those flags and make sure they're all tidied up with code left in the "on" mode by release time.
Trans women are women from a gender perspective, and not from a biological perspective. Unfortunately, the biological perspective is what the separations of men's and women's sports a thing, because of inherent biological sexual differences (primarily testosterone). I mean, if they want to get around the issue, then let's go all in - disband men's/women's sports and just have sports. Then anyone can play with anyone. That's never going to happen though, for political, cultural, and safety reasons, so we're stuck with a situation where gender is bumping up against biological sex hard.
> Trans women are women from a gender perspective, and not from a biological perspective.
From a biological perspective, trans-people lie in-between male and female. Transwomen are at an increased risk of breast cancer than cis-men while a lower risk prostate cancer. Transwomen (after years of estradiol) have significantly less muscle mass than cis-men, while, transmen have much more muscle mass than cis-women. All of the differences biologically are the result of sex hormones and the time at which they're introduced (pre-natal or puberty) and the time of exposure.
That said, I don't think it's wise for trans-women to play in serious sports. If they win, they won't get the credit, they'll be told it's because they're trans. If they lose, well, then no one cares and it doesn't make the headlines. It's unfair and unjust, but honestly, sports have never been fair or just. Especially the Olympics, they're a selection ritual for celebrating people who are genetically optimized for some specific task. I don't understand why it exists except for out of tradition.
"dumb and flat"? Maybe it's just the fact that I have a 5 year old and a 3 year old, so I've become somewhat of a connoisseur of animated shorts, but I've actually been fairly amazed with the quality of most of the animated shorts. With no real dialogue to speak of, there is an awful lot of humor packed into these, and the voice acting combined with the animation in some of the shorts is pretty damn impressive, often conveying a surprising amount of emotion and expressiveness that I would not have expected.
I'll give you dumb possibly, but flat? Watch a good number of them again and see if you still say that.
