I don't know C#, but if its engine is PCRE, the syntax for flags inside the pattern should be like (?i)pattern or (?i:pattern).

And no wonder Python is institutionalized in schools, banks, and laws.

RMS has written against "intellectual property" as a concept (though I haven't read it lately), and he pretty much invented "copyleft" as we understand it today. I personally prefer open licenses which free the users of code rather than the code as an end to itself. Similarly, knowledge is not an end to itself, but I think RMS would argue that this meshes with the purpose of libre licenses, which restrict what one party can do with another party's output, so that knowledge, technology, or algorithms don't become secret spells which become lost to the ages. He has a point.

But yes, non-commercial licensors can dual-license for profit. But funding research isn't what Certhas argued: he argued that some tools are too dangerous to be allowed commercial use, which in the end doesn't make sense, because if the tool is known about, and useful enough, it can be replicated. And anyway, not everybody cares about their legal licensing regime, least of all people whom he wouldn't trust with a piece of software he'd write.

I assume you're calling attention to the high-voted comment by "Certhas," which is obscured by the archive site's rendering, so I had to read it here https://snew.github.io/r/programming/comments/9bhyv9/comment/e53jp3o/

But it doesn't follow that it must be open for commercial exploitation.

This is the way communists use the term "exploitation" to refer to voluntary trade.

If enterprise wants to use and build upon these results it's right that they contribute back to the research institutions.

A non-commercial license prohibits this. Some of the replies feel the contradiction, but they don't really put their finger on it.

Anyway, RMS's view against "intellectual property" neatly sidesteps the idea of responsibility for tools being misused by treating knowledge differently from physical objects, which it is.

https://lmddgtfy.net/?q=let+me+ddg+that+for+you

Yes, it is, especially if they've upgraded: then that large recovery partition is probably the old OS. The EFI partition is required for most systems, even in other OSes. The OEM partition is probably drivers, crapware, and recovery from a hardware button or BIOS choice. The smaller recovery partitions are also common in recent Windows versions.

It's written in a weirdly high-level way, which makes it easy to follow if you can figure out wtf he's working on. The author must be brilliant to pull that off, which explains the fancy programming. If he packaged up his rants with a couple of charts or paragraphs of explanation, he'd have a really wide audience. It's a rare thing to find. I'm going to have to follow this blog now.

It means that compression algorithms (like cmix) have different tradeoffs (the lagrange lambdas), and you can optimize the cost "J" in order to compare and switch algorithms automatically, without external agents or users needing themselves to know about those tradeoffs. This sounds like sort of bleeding edge codec stuff, but maybe it's just a formalization of what they're already doing at his company, and which the tweak-by-intuition codec developers need to learn. The author relies on domain knowledge and context of other rants, or maybe familiarity with his company's work, which lends his post some ambiguity, but the comments on other posts show that his audience groks it.

For what it's worth, some sites like chaturbate work with HTML5 video now. No flash needed.

Strange. It's possible timers work on signals or something, yes. But I don't know Wx deeply enough, sorry.

Modal dialogs choke off the main event loop. The interface should be in its own process or thread, away from networking, ideally. Fork off for the socket or simply avoid anything like modal dialogs that pause the loop.

Yes, it is. The game is the deletionist-style forum janitorial services, not the content generation.

The former is dull and routine, while the latter people clamor to share info and ask questions in a place where they'll be seen (as we can deduce from SO's original quick success). The benefits of playing the answers-and-comments part correctly is the ability to block other players from both sections of the reputation system.

I think that at some point, if not at the beginning, this became a deliberate decision on the part of the site's developers, which is why I linked to that article.

It's appropriate you mention it being gamed.

In games, people lose and win. In a question/answer session, people teach and learn.