Indicators: SolarWinds - page 8

New comment
 
Integer: You know what I got from that star-studded thread? That you are a worthless lawyer, because you allow yourself to indulge in your right to make mistakes. That's all I wanted to say to you, but I didn't dare because I find this message so offensive, but now I have to say it. I thought it would get through to you, but as you can see, it didn't, so I apologise.
You're right. Your stupidity didn't get through to me. It is not offensive, because there are clouds of Law Academy graduates trying unsuccessfully to justify the same thing. The rest is here: https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/10543/page7#comment_424948.
 
Yedelkin:
You are right - your stupidity did not reach me. It's not offensive, because there are clouds of Law Academy graduates trying to argue the same thing without success. The rest is here: https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/10543/page7#comment_424948.
I don't get it. What are they trying to argue, that they have a right to be wrong or that they don't have a right to be wrong?
 

In case anyone's forgotten, here's a picture of Themis:

she has a scale in her hands, in order to weigh everything correctly and not to make a mistake.

 

Silent2013.02.09 11:522013.02.09 11:52:23

Yedelkin:
1) Judging by your pathos, you would probably 2) be very surprised if I agree that 'it should have been added that it is only and exclusively a conversion'. After all, the thing is tos, 3) you have only now been able to formulate your thought correctly.

1) Your fantasy.

2) Not at all. Was initially ready for a constructive dialogue :)

3) In the context of your post, no additional wording was required. You made a claim without suggesting it - I clarified it. That's all. And the fact that your evaluator turns off thinking - I wrote above: learn to understand.

I don't get it. Did you jump into someone else's thread, being ready for a constructive dialogue, just to argue with me personally? If not - then your message is completely incomprehensible. If yes - then you flew over the cuckoo's nest, because I did not intend to argue, but presented my view of the situation. I stated it with 'thinking' and 'understanding'.

Or are you trying to say that I have a poor understanding of the situation? - In this case I can only feel sorry for you and myself :).

 
Integer: I don't get it. What are they trying to justify, that they have a right to be wrong or that they don't have a right to be wrong?
It doesn't matter. What matters is that they are losing in their delusions. You personally have just lost in that you once tried to disprove the simple truth "Everyone has the right to be wrong".
 
TheXpert:
...

And the rest of us have gone off the rails.

No, they were working on a proposal.

The current information in the product description in kodobase is not enough for a certain number of users.

Proposal: to add to the description of products converted from MT4 kodobase an explanation that it is conversion, as is, with the right to make mistakes and without checking the idea itself.

The wording should be improved.

 
Silent: Proposal: to supplement the description of products converted from MT4 kodobase with a clarification that it is conversion, as is, with the right for error and without checking the idea itself.

The wording should be improved.

I agree absolutely. In order not to mislead potential MT5 users with names like Bollinger Fly, Williams Alligator, etc.
 
Yedelkin:
It doesn't matter anymore. What matters is that they lose in their delusions. You personally just lost in that you once tried to disprove the simple truth "Everyone is entitled to be wrong".

Still important. Who are they losing to?

The point is, and you can't understand it. The very question of the right to be wrong is absurd. There can be no right to a mistake, it can be allowed or not allowed, because of one or another of its consequences. There can be no right to it; these are notions from different incompatible categories.

 
Yedelkin:

It's already been 'poked'. https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/10543#comment_423671.


According to the text of this post, it is the idea of redrawing the indicator that is being picked on, but not the programming errors in the code.


It's time for everyone to decide what we are fighting for.

1. for the purity of the codebase and the absence of some algorithms (redrawing, inapplicability in practice, etc.)

2. or for error-free code with no run-time errors (array overflow, division by 0, etc.).


PS

I am personally allergic to Godzilla's codes because everything that comes out with the note"Author: Nikolay Kositsin" is a clear signal to forget and not to go there.

The essence of his transfer of codes from MQL4 to MQL5 is only for the sake of this very transfer. It is filling with quantity without looking through the prism of practical usefulness.

And we have code porting for the sake of porting itself. mindless, machine-like, primitive.

 
Integer: It's still important. Who do they lose to? The point is, and you wouldn't understand it. The very question of the right to make a mistake is absurd. There can be no right to a mistake, it can be allowed or not allowed, due to some or other consequences of it. There can be no right to it, they are concepts from different categories.

Kick-Ass 3. You wind up a gramophone that has already sung its tune. "They" wind up this record in front of the court about error and lose every time, because the right to error is real. Allowing or not allowing it is just a form of exercising the right. Invigorate your mental faculties and look for cases where 'error is tolerated'. And that is your unaccepted 'right to error'.

123456789
New comment