emphatic

The answer should be an emphatic no. Who's setting rules?

This is one of those times when I can't be emphatic enough without crudity. That was a fucking excellent eulogy.

The hate and dumping and gloating and sex exploits don't maky any normal emphatic person happy deep down.

The answer should be an emphatic no. Principle is more important here than a particular outcome.

The answer is an emphatic "Of course, stupid." You got along fine before it existed and you'll forget about it once you're not refreshing your feed every 10 minutes.

Since this is the top-voted comment, let me be emphatic. The assumptions the parent comment makes about the HS experience bear no resemblance to reality.

To be clear, and I should've been more emphatic about that in my original comment, this is a great demonstration of skill and ingenuity. The creator should be applauded for creating it.

If the answer is an emphatic "yes" -- despite the financial, emotional, and time requirements -- then, by all means, do. But if the answer is a hesitant "yes" or a firm "no", then, I might suggest you reconsider.

I am in emphatic agreement -- we tell our students that the point of our school is to get to a spot where you can get paid to learn the rest, and we hold classes for alums to encourage ongoing education. > Personally I'm against charging to teach others how to code.

He means something very specific when he talks about TDD, and while he's certainly emphatic about it, I dont think he's wrong. He might not be right either, but he also isn't lacking in "solid data or evidence to back up this assertion".

Em dashes are the most emphatic punctuation for communicating excursions, so the two points are related. Indeed, em dashes should be used sparingly, as exclamation marks are, since they are visually distracting.

Obviously our game and their messaging software are very different but I was compelled to comment to offer a counterpoint since the post title is so emphatic.

You can be emphatic, rigorous and uncompromising without swearing or insulting anyone. Sarah, in fact, is giving exactly this sort of negative feedback to Linus.

An emphatic no thank you. I fear these guys are committing the perennial mistake of designing a language for someone other than themselves - as always, for someone more average than themselves [] - and are following Java's example in this respect as well.

The article doesn't go on to talk about what a C-level exec actually is but makes an emphatic case that, since Porter is responsible for the crowning of these kings, and now Porter is proven wrong, then perhaps it's time to take the crowns away. I'm terribly biased, but I like this line of argument very much.

As a native English speaker I was never taught a rule that explains why I would say hotter or wrigglier or redder or wildest or shiniest, but more emphatic, more open, most excellent or most orange. I'd always assumed adjective -er and -est suffixes were just irregular, with no pattern to them at all.

The outcome will be that the former group pays less attention to more serious issues because of what they see as "crying wolf" by some parties and the latter group becomes more emphatic on trivial issues which "never get resolved". This helps neither group and does nothing to reduce these problems in the future, a net negative for all involved.

As for Thomas Ptacek's emphatic "use /dev/urandom" repetition, his article was about people attempting to use user-land replacements for the kernel implementations, not people who were using /dev/random. In essence, he's trying to make the argument that people shouldn't be so afraid of /dev/urandom so as to use something clearly worse.

I think the emphatic focus on immutability and keeping as much immutable as possible as is the case with Haskell and Clojure is the way forward, but only Haskell has really made any attempt to explore how to advance the power of expression in that mode. Idiomatic Clojure code barely makes use of monads as it is.

Here is one of those oh-so-productive HN threads where virtually everyone is competing to find either cleverer or more emphatic ways of agreeing with the same statement; in this case, it's "the government shouldn't regulate encryption", but it might just as well be "the government shouldn't be electronically strip searching people at airports". This phenomenon presents a manifold of problems, including: * Because we appear to be unable to move past the most immediately obvious point, we can't fit any other thoughts in our head, like, "maybe there is a real societal problem that needs to be addressed here" --- not by regulating encryption, but, for instance, perhaps by allocating funding and training differently.