|
011111100010 wrote: But there is a tradition that shows commitment
Don't you mean it's a scam started by DeBeers?
|
|
|
|
|
Could be. 
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
I have heard about some people using rubber rings on other body parts. But that is usually several years after the wedding - for newlyweds and a few years after, there is rarely any need for them.
|
|
|
|
|
When I got married it was about a personal choice, not about cost.
Myself and my wife (We where out in Qatar at the time as I was working out there) decided to just go and have a walk around one of the market places.
We ended up getting 2 very plain, very simple gold rings, what made it special was that we designed the pattern that the merchant then engraved into the rings all told about 500 ryals (About £100 GB at the time - 10 years ago now)
Today we have a set of fairly low quality gold rings, but they have a unique pattern on that's matching on both rings, we know they are OUR rings and symbolize us both as a partnership/team/duo how ever you want to describe it.
In my mind at least, it's not about the cost, it's about the symbolic binding between two people. Neither myself or my wife follow any pre-prescribed religion. My wife Identifies as no particular religion but not as an atheist, and I identify myself as an Agnostic, so the rings where not selected as any kind of religious symbology.
I think to some people it's just about signaling this linking of 2 people and if both parties are happy for that to be a plastic ring then so be it.
I think the reason that most of us are pre conditioned to expect to have to pay large amounts of money to our prospective bride is for exactly the same reason where expected and conditioned to update to the more costly new model of phone, or computer, or car or whatever each year.
Marketing and Consumerism.
Myself and My Wife, got our wedding, her dress, the venue the party & food and transport for relatives all for just under £1000 Gbp when we got married.
My friend who got married not long after, spent £10,000 on his wedding, and the dress was "hired" (They didn't get to keep it) we where shuttled out of the venue as fast as they could move us on to make way for the next couple who wanted their special day at that location, and the after party a number of people got sick due tot he quality of the food.
My friend and his Wife, went for the named brands, the high quality well know caterers, the post Equestrian center.
My Wedding, we had a simple service, and then had an amazing afternoon/evening in a local club, just having a jolly old family knees up, with a lot's of drinking & merriment, and a small buffet laid on by the club we where at.
Sorry, I got off onto a bit of a ramble there... but you get the point I was trying to make, hopefully 
Shawty
STILL CRAZY.
Best and ONLY way to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Shaw wrote: I think to some people it's just about signaling this linking of 2 people and if both parties are happy for that to be a plastic ring then so be it.
I agree. I am just surprised at how many people are now doing it.
Peter Shaw wrote: Myself and My Wife, got our wedding, her dress, the venue the party & food and transport for relatives all for just under £1000 Gbp when we got married.
Smart.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
011111100010 wrote: Peter Shaw wrote: I think to some people it's just about signaling this linking of 2 people and if both parties are happy for that to be a plastic ring then so be it.
I agree. I am just surprised at how many people are now doing it.
Ya but it's like anything popular ain't it, we all know what hipster culture did to us as a society
PS: Love your Tag Line...
"Lefty's of the world unite"
Shawty
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Shaw wrote: Lefty's of the world unite"
I feel your pain brother. Our people won't be held down for much longer.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
My wife and I got married over 25 years ago. She has a stock engagement/wedding ring that we customized slightly with different stones: the stock one utilized all diamonds while heres looks like a white rose (diamond) with leaves (emeralds). She has worn it constantly. I had a simple gold band; which I think may have been free with the purchase of her ring. If not, it was pretty cheap. It was also very uncomfortable, and I stopped wearing it.
Time went on, I started doing some activities (sailing) where I was glad I no longer wore it; I had heard the stories of people losing fingers getting the band caught on a line. We moved a couple of times. Short story: I have no idea where my wedding band went, but I certainly no longer have it.
I have seen the Enso bands, and I have considered getting one just BECAUSE it would be safe, and yet I could again represent my commitment to my wife. I haven't yet purchased one because I agree that they are fairly ugly, but if I find one tolerable in appearance, I probably will get it and see if I can stand wearing it.
So, while this might not be THE explanation of why popularity is increasing, it offers a reason other than being cheap or undevoted.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually only tend to wear mine when we go out together, or at family occasions.
I know where it is, I keep it in a box on my nightstand along with my watch and a few other bits.
I can't wear it when I'm typing (Which is 90% of my time) because it's uncomfortable when it rubs against the inside of my fingers, as with you it doesn't mean I think any less of my commitment, my commitment to my wife is proven by the fact where still together.
|
|
|
|
|
I talked to a young contractor here at work who wore one of those silicone rings. He and his wife are really into lifting weights & working out. He said it's a trendy thing within his social group of hard-core exercise people to get those rings. He said it's primarily for the practical reason of not having to worry about getting your finger caught when, say, doing pullups, but there's also the financial/social agreement not to expect "2 months salary" for a ring. It's interesting because I agree about wedding ring expense being such a pointless waste of money, but in my social circle I'm shouting against the wind; if I just started wearing one, my wife would be angry/offended, I would get endless weird looks, all that. I would love it if they would come around to this way of thinking but it'll never happen. However, if their entire subculture/clique has all agreed that this is acceptable for them, then it's one more forced-purchase they can cast off, which is wonderful. (I've tried to do a similar thing for birthdays and Christmas gifts--I always suggest that we get gifts for kids, but do away with gift exchanges between adults, who so clearly don't really care about it, but the powerful of the social tradition is just too strong to break away from; nobody has the courage to break from it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: impressive still.
Very! 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
You mean APOD. I thought Apod was a new apple music device. 
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
No, I wrote: Not the Apod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wake up, loungers, I'm ready to rant.
Just wanted to let you all know that I've just read another angle on databinding and <GRATUITOUS EXAGGERATION >it is as we all know : A SCAM!! </GRATUITOUS EXAGGERATION >
All the frameworks say it works, but I say, Databinding data-schminding.
Doesn't Work Much Or At All
Actually, when you dig into it and begin to get it working you find: "a lot of it just doesn't work that great or at all."
I've found this to be true on Win Forms, Android dev, iOS dev and many other APIs.
Numerous frameworks say it works but then it doesn't really work.
Angular Might Be An Exception
Okay, I admit it, Angular actually works kind'a well for databinding.
But, don't get distracted, databinding really doesn't work that well.
Huge Learning Curve Anyways
And even if you can get it working there is often a huge learning curve to get it working properly.
I know someone who just went through this and took a week to get it right in a WPF XAML app. (a very small sample too).
So, just trying to start a bit of controversy here:
Quote: Databinding is just a marketing ploy and dev's dream, isn't it? It doesn't really work or save you time, does it?
Am I right or am i right?
May as well do it by hand than learn all that databinding nonsense,right? ay? right, then?
Are you with me on this Anti-DataBinding Movement?
Got It Working?
Or tell me where you've got databinding to work smoothly and seamlessly and with little effort.
|
|
|
|
|
WPF has a steep learning-curve, but once you've "got" it, it's fairly easy to work with. We use it in a WPF application for air-traffic controllers that bolts on to our airport management system, and any effort spent getting the data-binding to work is trivial compared to the application logic.
One of the first applications I worked on had to be implemented in Access 97. The customer didn't like the way that Access worked, so all data binding had to be done by hand. It ended up being incredibly slow, and painful to update, and the customer ended up ditching it before it was finished.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, very good explanation.
So, it is something you can do a one-time mapping of data to field on and then it works? Is that how you save time?
Because it feels like manual work every time anyways.
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
There's still a certain amount of manual work. But it's generally easier to fire a "property changed" event and let the data-binding framework take care of the details, than to write code to manually update a whole bunch of controls.
With a suitable base class, and a couple of attributes to declare inter-property dependencies, I end up with VM code that looks something like:
[DependsOnProperty(nameof(Foo))]
[AffectsOtherProperty(nameof(Bar))]
public string Fizz
{
get { return _fizz; }
set { SetProperty(ref _fizz, value); }
}
When I set Fizz, it raises a PropertyChanged event for both Fizz and Bar. When I set Foo, it raises events for Foo, Fizz and Bar.
So much nicer than:
public string Fizz
{
get { return _fizz; }
set
{
_fizz = value;
SomeControl.Value = value;
AnotherControl.Visible = value == "Baz";
YetAnotherControl.Checked = value == "Buzz";
...
}
}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
+5 dev-points for the very nice and succinct example.
Does it get crazy when things get more complicated?
Are there places where you have had extended challenges that make the binding more difficult or where the binding fails?
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Does it get crazy when things get more complicated?
Of course.
But I don't think it would be any less crazy if I was trying to manually update the UI.
raddevus wrote: Are there places where you have had extended challenges that make the binding more difficult or where the binding fails?
Very rarely. But you can always fall back to writing code in the code-behind if absolutely necessary.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with data binding is that you think you can bind to any public property, but that's not true. Some are read-only of course, but many don't implement the event firing mechanism that says "I've changed". Doing that requires discipline on the part of the developer. At some point, the developer will say, "WTF, I have a hundred properties for this UI control, and I'm supposed to write a "PropertyChanged" setter call for each one?" 
What Microsoft should do is create a special PropertyWithChangeEvent syntactical sugar that creates the call for you.
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Doing that requires discipline on the part of the developer.
well, we know that is an unreasonable expectation. The best devs are lazy. I hope to be as good as Wally (Dilbert) some day.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: WTF, I have a hundred properties for this UI control, and I'm supposed to write a "PropertyChanged" setter call for each one
Your kidding right, I have not coded one of them in years, that is what snippets are for. Even for automatic properties there is a snippet.
OPC tab tab type name and I'm done! And yeah I will do that a 100 times if required but then I'm definitely annaly retentive about it.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
/s3/tark/NH/201008/16/1356156.jpg){kind=link}