divergent

Our problems stem from divergent interests. What is in the interest of one, is not in the interest of his neighbor.

We're late in a divergent phase. Both divergent and convergent phases are necessary and healthy.

It's almost like the Internet is lots of different people with wildly divergent opinions!

There are wildly divergent accounts of what AirBnB has offered to EJ. From her perspective, essentially nothing. Based on what they've told you, they've offered to make her whole.

The point is that in any sizable population, you're going to have divergent viewpoints on what is "creepy" and what is not. Creepy is not an objective measurement.

The Ramanujan summation is not the real summation, its a way to assign a sum to divergent series which can be useful in some cases.

Thus it is consistent with their corporate ethos to hire/promote someone who has "divergent" political or personal beliefs. That's what bdcravens is saying

Well, of course any large group of people with divergent opinions will be self-conflicting when examined as a whole. I understand why we do it; our brains pattern-match people into camps and construct narratives on our behalf to make sense of the world.

Without, conformance tests different interpretations of a spec lead to divergent behavior. Once that behavior is out there long enough it becomes difficult to fix as people are depended on it and/or its quirks.

Coding to standards is a best-practice, low-cost way of dealing with the real problem of divergent browser implementations. If that problem becomes theoretical, but the cost does not, then the sensible path is to code write pages that work in Webkit, standards be damned.

Just my experience, I'm sure many people have divergent experiences. Edit: I would also like to add a key driver to my happiness is that I'm in a position of change at the BigCo. It's not just endless meetings, and I have a great deal of autonomy, and am working on exciting things.

Only on hacker news can you find very divergent opinions expressed side by side without banning, censoring, downvoting or trolling. I'm not saying that pending comments will destroy that, but I already while writing this comment I'm worried about being liked by the big guys.

We don't need to assume they're unused to practicality or intelligent observation and reflection simply because their opinions are divergent from our own.

The divergent standards between those - like me - who serve companies and sophisticated investors, and those who serve unsophisticated Main Street clients is startling. To me, it would be preposterous to not be fiduciarilly bound to a retained client.

Every failed company that I have founded, worked at, worked with, or heard of, has ultimately failed because they could not focus on a single goal, and instead pursued multiple, divergent plans... all at the same time.

It's likely that the ion pumps and non-permeable membranes formed as the little guys moved out of the geothermal vents and diverged into new environments, giving rise to the divergent archea and bacteria.

Even in Dominion tournament games, where most players have played thousands of games, it's common to see wildly divergent strategies, because neither player has played on a board with a similar starting state, so they both have to figure out the best strategy in real time. I always cringe when that happens, and I realize I'm playing an inferior strategy.

]" This is divergent, but I feel compelled to defend Amex here on the basis of quality of leads and consumer ethics, with the main contention being a higher processing fee for Amex relative to Visa and Mastercard. # Quality of leads "Amex cards account for approximately 24% of the total dollar volume of credit card transactions in the US, the highest of any card issuer" [1].

Given that the behaviors are divergent based on what order the variables appear in, I'd say it's confusing enough that a way to explicitly say "hey, I know what I'm doing, I want to shadow any outer variables and declare local scope here" would be useful.

It is just as wrong to abstract an accidental similarity as it is not abstract an existing one; soon the requirements change and the abstraction will have to be abandoned, code copied and developed in divergent ways. Finally, people start attempting metaprogramming way before they had learnt enough about structuring programs using basic means, like breaking things down into classes and methods appropriately, data-driving your programs etc.