excel不小心点不保存_小心自己不喜欢的东西

excel不小心点不保存

The last few months I keep making the same observation over and over again in various different contexts: that whenever you are confronted with a very strong opinion about a topic, reasonable discussions about the topic often involve arguments that have long become outdated or are no longer strictly relevant to the conversation.

最近几个月，我在各种不同的情况下一遍又一遍地进行相同的观察：每当您对某个主题有非常强烈的意见时，对该主题进行合理的讨论通常会涉及早已过时或不再存在的争论。与对话严格相关。

What I mean by that is that given a controversial topic, a valid argument for one side of the other is being repeated by a crowd of people that once heard it, even after that argument stops being valid. This happens because often the general situation changed and the argument references a reality that no longer exists in the same form. Instead of reevaluating the environment however, goalposts are moved to restore the general sentiment of the opinion.

我的意思是，给定一个有争议的主题，即使是在该论点不再有效之后，一群曾经听到过的人也正在重复另一侧的有效论点。 之所以会发生这种情况，是因为通常情况会发生变化，并且自变量引用的现实不再以相同的形式存在。 然而，与其重新评估环境，不如移动球门柱以恢复舆论的普遍情绪。

To give you a practical example of this problem I can just go by a topic I have a very strong opinion about: Python 3. When Python 3 was not a huge thing yet I started having conversations with people in the community about the problems I see with splitting the community and complexity of porting. Not just that, I also kept bringing up general questions about some of the text and byte decisions. I started doing talks about the topic and write blog articles that kept being shared. Nowadays when I go to a conference I very quickly end up in conversations where other developers come to me and see me as the “Does not like Python 3 guy”. While I still am not a friend of some of the decisions in Python 3 I am very much aware that Python 3 in 2016 is a very different Python 3 than 6 years ago or earlier.

为了给您一个有关此问题的实际例子，我可以通过一个我有很强烈意见的主题进行讨论：Python3。当Python 3并不是什么大问题时，我开始与社区中的人们就我所看到的问题进行对话分裂社区和移植的复杂性。 不仅如此，我还不断提出一些有关文本和字节决定的一般性问题。 我开始就该主题进行讨论，并撰写博客文章，这些文章一直在共享。 如今，当我去参加会议时，我很快就陷入了对话，其他开发人员来找我，并视我为“不喜欢Python 3的家伙”。 虽然我仍然不是Python 3某些决定的朋友，但我非常清楚2016年的Python 3与6年前或更早的Python 3截然不同。

In fact, I myself campaigned for some changes to Python 3 that made it possible to achieve better ports (like the reintroduction of the u prefix on Unicode string literals) and the bulk of my libraries work on Python 3 for many years now. It’s a fact that in 2016 the problems that people have with Python 3 are different than they used to have before.

实际上，我本人一直在争取对Python 3进行一些更改，从而有可能实现更好的端口（例如在Unicode字符串文字上重新引入u前缀），并且我的大部分库都在Python 3上工作了很多年。 事实是，2016年人们在使用Python 3时遇到的问题与以前不同。

This leads to very interesting conversations where I can have a highly technical conversation about a very specific issue with Python 3 and thoughts about how to do it differently or deal with it (like some of the less obvious consequences of the new text storage model) and another person joins into the conversation with an argument against Python 3 that has long stropped being valid. Why? Because there is a cost towards porting to Python 3 and a chance is not seen. This means that a person with a general negativity towards Python 3 would seek me out and try to reaffirm their opposition to a port to it.

这导致了非常有趣的对话，在该对话中，我可以就Python 3的一个非常特定的问题进行高度技术性的对话，并思考如何以不同的方式进行处理或处理它（例如新文本存储模型的一些不太明显的后果），以及另一个人加入了针对Python 3的争论，该争论长期以来一直是有效的。 为什么？ 因为移植到Python 3需要付出一定的代价，而且没有机会。 这意味着一个对Python 3普遍持否定态度的人会寻找我，并尝试重申他们反对移植到它的端口。

Same thing is happening with JavaScript where there is a general negative sentiment about programming in it but not everybody is having good arguments for it. There are some that actually program a lot in it and dislike specific things about the current state of the ecosystem, but generally acknowledge that the language is evolving, and then there are those that take advantage of unhappiness and bring their heavily outdated opposition against JavaScript into a conversation just to reaffirm their own opinion.

JavaScript发生了同样的事情，其中​​普遍存在着对编程的负面情绪，但并不是每个人都有很好的论据。 有一些实际上在其中进行了很多编程，并且不喜欢有关生态系统当前状态的特定内容，但是通常都承认该语言正在不断发展，然后还有一些人利用不快乐的方式，将对JavaScript的过时反对付诸实践。对话只是为了重申自己的观点。

This is hardly confined to the programming world. I made the same discovery about CETA. CETA is a free trade agreement between the European Union and Canada and it had the misfortune of being negotiated at the same time as the more controversial TTIP with the US. The story goes roughly like this: TTIP was negotiated in secrecy (as all trade agreements are) and there were strong disagreements between what the EU and what the US thought trade should look like. Those differences were about food safety standards and other highly sensitive topics. Various organizations on both the left and right extremes of the political scale started to grab any remotely controversial information that leaked out to shift the public opinion towards negativity to TTIP. Then the entire thing spiraled out of control: people not only railed against TTIP but took their opposition and looked for similar contracts and found CETA. Since both are trade agreements there is naturally a lot of common ground between them. The subtleties where quickly lost. Where the initial arguments against TTIP were food standards, public services and intransparent ISDS courts many of the critics failed to realize that CETA fundamentally was a different beast. Not only was it already a much improved agreement from the start, but it kept being modified from the initial public version of it to the one that was finally sent to national parliaments.

这几乎不局限于编程领域。 我对CETA也有同样的发现。 CETA是欧盟和加拿大之间的自由贸易协议，它的不幸之处在于与美国之间争议更大的TTIP同时谈判。 故事大致是这样的：TTIP是秘密谈判的（因为所有贸易协定都是如此），欧盟与美国认为贸易的样子之间存在强烈分歧。 这些差异涉及食品安全标准和其他高度敏感的主题。 政治规模左右两端的各种组织开始获取任何极具争议性的信息，这些信息泄漏出去使公众舆论转向对TTIP的否定。 然后整个事情变得一发不可收拾：人们不仅对TTIP感到不满，而且反对他们并寻求类似的合同并找到了CETA。 由于两者都是贸易协定，因此它们之间自然有很多共同点。 微妙之处很快就消失了。 反对TTIP的最初论点是食品标准，公共服务和不透明的ISDS法院，许多批评家没有意识到CETA从根本上说是另一种野兽。 它不仅从一开始就已经有了很大的改进，而且从最初的公开版本一直修改为最终发送给国会的协议。

However despite what I would have expected: that critics go in and acknowledge that their criticism was being heard instead slowly moved the goalposts. At this point there is so much emotion and misinformation in the general community that the goalpost moved all the way to not supporting further free trade at all. In the general conversation about ISDS and standards many people brought introduced their own opinions about free trade and their dislike towards corporations and multinationals.

然而，尽管有我所期望的：批评家走进去，承认他们的批评正在被听到，而是慢慢地移动了球门柱。 在这一点上，整个社区充满了情感和错误信息，以至于目标柱一路走来，根本不支持进一步的自由贸易。 在有关ISDS和标准的一般性讨论中，许多人介绍了他们对自由贸易的看法以及他们对公司和跨国公司的厌恶。

This I assume is human behavior. Admitting that you might be wrong is hard enough, but it’s even harder when you had validation that you were right in the past. In particular that an argument against something might no longer be valid because that something has changed in the meantime is hard. I’m not sure what the solution to this is but I definitely realized in the few years on my own behavior that one needs to be more careful about stating strong opinions in public. At the same time however I think we should all be more careful dispelling misinformation in conversations even if the general mood supports your opinion. As an example while emotionally I like hearing stories about how JavaScript’s packaging causes pain to developers since I experienced it first hand, I know from a rational point of view that the ecosystem is improving a tremendous speeds. Yes I have been burned by npm but it’s not like this is not tremendously improving.

我认为这是人类的行为。 承认自己可能是错的已经足够难了，但是当您确认自己过去是对的时甚至更加困难。 特别是反对某事的论点可能不再成立，因为与此同时某件事已经改变。 我不确定解决方案是什么，但是我肯定会在几年后根据自己的行为认识到，在公开发表强烈意见时需要更加谨慎。 然而，与此同时，我认为我们所有人都应该更加谨慎地消除对话中的错误信息，即使总体上的情绪支持您的观点。 举个例子，自从我亲身经历以来，在情感上我喜欢听听有关JavaScript的包装如何使开发人员感到痛苦的故事，但从理性的角度来看，我知道生态系统正在以惊人的速度提高。 是的，我已经被npm烧死了，但这并不是没有很大的改善。

翻译自: https://www.pybloggers.com/2016/11/be-careful-about-what-you-dislike/

excel不小心点不保存