Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Timone is also foreign.
But like, if you want a parable they already gave you one: they aren't immigrants, they're Nazis.
> Won't work if you're already in a string
This doesn't make sense. How can you search for a string if you're already in a string? I can't think of a realistic situation where that would be useful or even really possible.
> or if there are escaped quotes in the string.
Solvable:
'(\'|\\|[^\'])*'|"(\"|\\|[^\"])*"
> Also won't work if you have two or more double quoted strings that both contain an apostrophe.The regex in my previous comment already solves that. See: https://repl.it/repls/SolidCapitalProgram
But more broadly, any situation where you search from a non-zero index has this problem.
I'm surprised your example works in Python. Is that a property of Python's parser, or all regex matchers?
I've been training remarkably difficult-to-train people for decades, with really spotty success.
Part of it was that I have never been "trained to train," so I cleared the minefield by dancing through it.
I have learned to take Responsibility for communication.
In my experience, if "they" don't "get it," it's my fault.
The biggest problem that I have, is starting at too high a baseline (sounds like what happened here). In many cases, I need to back up, and do a "preflight" of "the basics."
I want to say it's enthusiasm that matters, but a lazy smart person takes less time to train than an enthusiastic moron, in my experience.
If you're paid to train people it's healthy to take responsibility for that but IMO it's not realistic or true. Training someone with poor aptitude is like swimming through tar. It's palpably different.
Calcified engineers are more likely to enjoy the high-level corporate environment. Flexible ones leave to start companies, contract, whatever.
It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between this and a student's academic performance.
This may be way off in another field, but this is actually frustrating to me as a father in another way: when we watch shows or read books with our child so many of the stories are so far detached from reality as to make me ask, "Why are we asking kids to care about this?" I have particular ire for Disney's penchant to make kids think they need to be groomed for life in royal society when they have effectively a 0% chance of ever needing to learn those life skills in that context. I much more appreciate shows that explore how people need to learn to interact with their peers at home, in public, at school etc. I know it's tempting to also want to kind of detach the concept from actual people with animals and such, but my daughter is not an elephant or a car, she doesn't possess a magical amulet or the ability to fly or to submerge the whole state in sub-zero arctic winter. I know it's fun to dream and imagine, but I wonder sometimes if we're communicating: "the world around is impossibly complex and you need superhuman ability to solve it. You don't have those and so you're ill-equipped to do anything about it." Some days, that may be true, but I appreciate stories that emphasize we have a reasonable degree of power within our own human faculties and learning to leverage and use those faculties is far more effective than showing kids flashy superpowers or magical worlds they won't have or see. All this, from a guy who spent numerous of his childhood days imagining himself as Mega Man absorbing everyone else's superpowers, engrossed in Star Wars and TMNT. Shrug
I like Mulan though, and The Lion King. I think those are some very cool movies with very good life lessons.
They’re only dangerous because they’re excluded from the kingdom and are given little chance to survive. The entire narrative of Scar having control over them is based on him providing them with food, because their lands contain none. In the scene where they’re introduced, Scar brings them meat and his entire promise to them is “stick with me and you’ll never go hungry again”
Scar is evil and seeking power, but the hyenas are only following him because they’re looking for a better life, because what they have at the start is meagre.
At the end, when they turn on Scar, the threat seems to end, so it seems that only Scar has an agenda and the hyenas just want to live their lives. With Scar remover, the lands return to normal despite the hyenas still existing (although we’re not shown what happened to them, iirc).
Sure, they’re ruthless, but that’s at least somewhat understandable given their situation.
I think it's actually a very deep analogy to real fascist regimes. Recruit the type of poor who beat people up in bars via rhetoric that implies the rich are responsible for both their situation, and that behaviour. One implication is that the rich are the only ones who are exploitative, and the leader of the revolution in particular is not. "When we win, I will be good to you." Then you end up with a dictator.
At a meta-level the point is that the hyenas are the type of people who are insatiable, which is why they're persuaded by empty promises of power and why everything turns to wasteland once they're in charge.
But even then, conflict is a fact of life. If the hyenas hate you, allowing them to take charge will suck for you, even if it's nice for them. It's not a nice point but IMO it's an important life lesson.