Yeah, properties (like a field but with a getter and/or setter method, may or may not be backed by a field) are PascalCase

That's an instance property

Pretty sure that movie was terrible with an awesome soundtrack

That's... not the point either. The point is that "reporting false positives isn't a bad thing" is only true up to a point. The discussion is then "is this before or after that point." Which, given the context of the bug, isn't really a given. But I don't want to have that discussion with you anymore because you're annoying.

Of course. If you're working in a DSL that's popular enough for someone to have written a good schema/parser for then tooling can help.

Addition by the additive inverse.

If you use an Insider build, reserved for the most daring of tech-savvy beta testers, you get a different screen.

It's green.

It cannot in fact be oriented, regardless of the embedding and the dimension of the ambient space.

I bought one from him, he included a very nice letter. 10/10 recommend.

Mathematician is a professional title. I quit the profession and now work as a software developer.

There are different things which could be called "infinite numbers." The one discussed in the other reply is "cardinal numbers" or "cardinalities," which are "the sizes of sets." This is the one that's typically meant when it's claimed that "some infinities are bigger than others," because e.g. the set of natural numbers is smaller (in the sense of cardinality) than the set of real numbers.

Ordinal numbers are another. Whereas cardinals extend the notion of "how many" to the infinite scale, ordinals extend the notion of "sequence." Just like a natural number always has a successor, an ordinal does too. We bridge the gap to infinity by defining an ordinal as e.g. "the set of ordinals preceding it." So {} is the first one, called 0, and {{}} is the next one (1), and so on. The set of all finite ordinals (natural numbers) {{}, {{}}, ...} = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} is an ordinal too, the first infinite one, called omega. And now clearly {omega} = omega + 1 is next.

Hyperreal numbers extend the real numbers rather than just the naturals, and their definition is a little more contrived. You can think of it as "the real numbers plus an infinite number omega," with reasonable definitions for addition and multiplication and such, so that e.g. 1/omega is an infinitesimal (greater than zero but smaller than any positive real number). In this context, omega + 1 or 2 * omega are greater than omega.

Surreal numbers are yet another, extending both the real and hyperreal numbers (so by default the answer is "yes" here too).

The extended real numbers are just "the real numbers plus two formal symbols, "infinity" and "negative infinity"." This lacks the rich algebraic structure of the hyperreals, but can be used to simplify expressions involving limits of real numbers. For example, in the extended reals, "infinity plus one is infinity" is a shorthand for the fact that "if a_n is a series approaching infinity as n -> infinity, then (a_n + 1) approaches infinity as n -> infinity." In this context, there are no "different kinds of infinity."

The list goes on, but generally, yes-- most things that are reasonably called "infinite numbers" have a concept of "larger infinities."

In C# you can automatically generate (or manually write) binding redirects that let you say "anything using versions between x.y.0 and x.y.9 should use x.y.9", which helps a lot with transitive dependencies. However, doing this manually is hard, and you can't really rely on semver to be done "correctly." This leads to subtle bugs. Occasionally not so subtle, but hard to diagnose.