561 reputation
219
bio website viltersten.com
location Stockholm, Sweden
age 38
visits member for 1 year, 9 months
seen 6 hours ago

Initially, a self taught code monkey since the age of 10 when i got my first computer, the coolest Atari 65XE. Later on, a mathematics and computer science student at a university with a lot of side-studies in philosophy, history, japanese etc. Today, a passionate developer with focus on web related technology from MS.

Motto:
A lousy programmer knows how to create problems.
A good programmer knows how to solve problems.
A great programmer knows how to avoid them. (Get the double meaning?)

Works at: http://kentor.se  
Blogs at: http://konradviltersten.wordpress.com  
Lives at: http://viltersten.somee.com

7h
comment When did it become correct to add an “s” to a singular possessive already ending in “‑s”?
As a statistician - I'm impressed. Hence +1. As a human being I'm afraid and worried. As beautiful as it looks, where did you get the time to do that, mate?! :)
Aug
12
comment Correcting the usage of singular “they” and “their”
@AndrewLeach After once again reviewing the question, I decided that a tag might might illuminate the intended content. It's still not the one that tchris mistakingly added, the reason of which I clarified above. (E.g. "what is 'grammatics'?" shouldn't use the tag grammatics, although it contains the word.) Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve question (as it was intended by me, of course). Thank you in advance.
Aug
12
comment Correcting the usage of singular “they” and “their”
@AndrewLeach Thank you for your input. However, I'm afraid that you're mistaken. The singular they is a very special thing calling for raised eyebrows amongst many non-NSEs and and such, admittedly, deserving an own tag. My question happens to use the word but is actually about something else. I tried to distance it from the others by not adding said tag. Please, kindly refer to the correct answer by guifa. As for the experienced users, well... If it's tchris you refer to, he claimed himself not to even understand the question so he might consider not putting his 2 cents here. :)
Aug
12
comment Correcting the usage of singular “they” and “their”
@tchrist The question is not about singular they. As I kindly pointed out, you're mistaken as to what the question asks. I suggest that you take a step back and re-regard the question from some perspective (you might want to use the actual and correct answer to guide you, if it helps). I'm not looking to start a infected discussion here so I hope that the readers can respect that I know what I'm asking about. (The fact that an answer's been given implies that others got that too, so it's not a matter of formulation.) The question stays as is. Thank you. Downvoting was uncalled for.
Aug
11
comment Correcting the usage of singular “they” and “their”
@tchrist Please stop correcting (or, rather, incorrecting) the question by adding irrelevant tags. I pointed that out before and just noticed that some tags were added, so I rollbacked to the correct version. I believe I'm in a better position to judge what my question is about, especially given that you've mentioned not really seeing what I'm asking. Luckily, there was someone else who saw what I was struggling with and answered already, to my satisfaction. I believe you simply misunderstood the question despite the disclaimer. I tried to be very clear but perhaps I wasn't enough so.
Aug
11
comment 'future in the future' tense in English?
Guifa. Sorry - I couldn't give him name explicitly as @guifa for some reason.
Aug
10
comment 'future in the future' tense in English?
Dude, please contact me. Email works great. Check out my profile. I need to tell you something regarding the other question and I don't want to make that public there. :)
Aug
10
comment Correcting the usage of singular “they” and “their”
@JohnLawler There isn't any neat, shorter term for that, is there? Darn...
Aug
10
comment Correcting the usage of singular “they” and “their”
@tchrist Give me a while so I can think of another way to express the question. I've put some time into it already so it'll be a bit hard to clarify even more but I'll try. In the meantime, I hope someone gets the core of what I'm asking for so I won't have to. (Also, it's not about singular-they per se so I rollbacked your tag addition.) :)
Aug
8
comment Isn't the word “shotgun” a self-redundancy?
@KitFox Point taken. And agreed upon. In the future I'll make sure to check my one or few words' possible second meanings. This was the first time in my life I hit a word with such an obvious and (to me) well familiar primary meaning and so unknown (to me, still) second one but still so easily accessible definition (once one realizes that a search might be in place). As for the community's reaction, I understand that many sour cases affect the perception of the whole. I also note that the reaction we refer to is limited to a single user being a bit conclusionally jumpy. Great! :)
Aug
8
comment Isn't the word “shotgun” a self-redundancy?
@KitFox I see how you figure. However, you need to keep in mind that shot made sense "kind-of"-ishly. And checking for every word's possible second meaning is hardly feasible. Especially as I had no reason to suspect that there was a second, "hidden" meaning. It doesn't really matter if the question is closed or not in this particular case. However, such conduct will damage the purposefulness of the site in the long run. And that would be really bad. Let's just drop the subject for now and hope that the user learned not to jump to conclusions. We're all friends here, right? :)
Aug
8
comment Isn't the word “shotgun” a self-redundancy?
@KitFox I'm sensing a hidden point but I fail to perceive it fully. Care to elaborate for a tired mind? I see that person A finds a considerable number of occurrences of an event and person B finds an equivalently large (or even significantly larger) set exhibiting lack of said event. Given that the phenomenon in question is a problem that needs to be addressed and that the lack of it needs not, the above situation is equivalent to only the person A's observation. F.i.: "Around 1% of the population suffers hunger." "Well, 99% is satisfied." Can we disregard the (smaller issue) then?
Aug
7
comment Isn't the word “shotgun” a self-redundancy?
@RegDwigнt ...that second meaning. So it seems to be unintuitive to check for other meaning on that word. Perhaps you didn't get stuck on that because of your excellent linguistic ability. But claiming that I'm on purpose wasting my own and others' time by asking questions that are obviously easy answerable, that's simply insulting. I always do my homework before posting a question. Just because some users have this dyspeptic view that "all" other users are lazy and need to be taught a lesson, doesn't mean it is OK to accuse them of that. It isn't productive so let's just drop the subject.
Aug
7
comment Isn't the word “shotgun” a self-redundancy?
@RegDwigнt Please take this in the most polite and respectful way possible but my impression is that you just to conclusions way to much. Perhaps it may behoove us if you took what I write more literally. E.g. I can't recall saying that you judged the question useless. E.g. I never said that you are (or aren't NSE. And the only point I was trying to make was that the claim that I'm asking while on purpose disregarding something (that should be) known to me. That's where you're wrong. I asked around and, in fact, every single person I know was struck by a surprise that shot had...
Aug
1
comment What's the meaning of “Bueller” as a joke?
@MattЭллен You're right. I wasn't sure - in fact I asked whether it was linguistic or cultural thing. Let's close the question. I got my answer anyway so I'm happy. :)
Jul
31
comment Meaning of “9/11 is plain wrong” joke
The joke itself is great. The subject, far less so (devastated many lives and cause the word to become a darker place). Having said that - shouldn't it say "plainLY wrong" to be correct? Is is it colloquially correct to skip the last two characters?
Jul
27
comment Meaning of “balls to the wall”
Five voters don't constitute "everybody", Kevin, and frankly I believe that those guys have a lot to do and might be simply affected by your faulty indication. It doesn't really matter in this case, so I'm not making a big fuss of it, but I'd like you to put more effort trying to understand the actual question being asked before hitting that "OMG it's a dupe"-button. Otherwise, you're putting the OP in a spot where they need to explain themselves and that's not really fair not healthy for the site. All I'm very kindly asking for is that you put more effort before flagging a question.
Jul
25
comment Meaning of “balls to the wall”
@KevinWorkman I don't understand which disclaimer you refer to but perhaps it's of no importance at this point. After all - it's all right, Kevin - I do presume that all's been done with best intentions for the site in mind. One can't ask for anything more. In the future, we might behoove of you reading a question more in-depth and comparing the actual contents more carefully. Likewise, perhaps I should consider initiating some of my questions with a disclaimer explaining that it's note a dupe. Have a nice weekend, mate.
Jul
24
comment Meaning of “balls to the wall”
@AndrewLeach I saw your comment a few minutes ago so I couldn't react to that. Irregardless, I don't see a point of arguing my case here since I got an answer to the actual question I asked. I'm just afraid that such misdirected flagging damages the quality of the contents in the long run. I suggest we pull the plug on this one - I'm sure there are other, real, issues elsewhere needing your attention. (And to be honest, I might be mistaken on this one too. I don't get it since I can clearly see the distinction between my and the linked thread but hey, I might be wrong, might I not?) :)
Jul
24
comment Meaning of “balls to the wall”
@KevinWorkman I'm not offended and please accept my apology, would you perceive my tone as unkind. I'm just stating that the question asked here isn't answered at the post linked by you, at least not in a form that is digestible to my mind. I'll go ahead and assume that you misunderstood what I'm asking about (hint: it's not about what the expression means nor where it comes from). I see it unfit to motivate why my question is non-dupe because that's an implication of "guilt" until proven otherwise. And I fear that such over-nit-pickness damages the site. :)