It's theoretically possible to 'skip' a MUST task by marking it done and then manually re-adding it to the list. Because that's a (comparative) hassle, it introduces a psychological barrier that will keep most people from doing it to 'cheat' (the equivalent of channel surfing), and will make them only skip a MUST item when absolutely necessary.
I should probably have been more clear about that. When you indicate that you want to do something else, it will only pick from your "WANT" items - so if you only have one, it will keep coming up with the same item.
This is actually intentional; I've noticed that I got tempted to move aside a fun project to get more 'work' stuff done. The idea of only giving you a "MUST" after finishing the current "WANT" is that you'll have to take a break from work, before you can start with it again.
Another reason for doing this is that it would be quite unfair to give you a 'work' item when you don't feel like the 'play' suggestion it's making and just want to relax with something else - it would defeat the point of the 'play' part, and would make you afraid of clicking "something else", because it might come up with a 'work' item. It's all part of the "balance between work and play" thing :)
I'll change around the sidebar text in a few minutes, to clarify on this.
I have updated the post to explicitly exclude Reddit and StackOverflow, as these two sites have a very particular and curious community atmosphere that doesn't accurately reflect the general atmosphere in more Python-focused communities.
As for your point regarding the search query: I normally do not filter search results by domain. The reason I filtered them here, was because the article was about the official Python documentation. To quote my elaboration on this that I posted on the Reddit thread:
"My point was that the official Python documentation is poor. I certainly agree that many things are answered on StackOverflow, but imagine that you're looking for something that not very many people use.
You'll search on Google, not find any StackOverflow posts (after all, nearly noone uses the thing you're looking for), and you just find a few unclear blog posts and a Python documentation page.
Official documentation is important especially as a fallback when other sources fail to provide the relevant information. As such, the focus of the official documentation should be on complete and clear, unambiguous reference. That's not what the official Python documentation provides.
While len() may be a very simple example (and intentionally chosen for that reason), I've more than once run across things for which basically no documentation could be found aside from an ambiguous explanation in the Python documentation that never got me anywhere."
Even a ballpark estimate makes no sense without at least a vague source. You're trying to define statistics for a network that is designed to make it infeasible to gather statistics...
The validity of that analogy strongly depends on whether local activists make a habit of passing packages with encrypted contents through your place, to avoid prosecution of a tyrannical government.
"Furthermore, the reason you hear of child porn rings is because those are what form - people share it with each other in a tit-for-tat sort of way. It absolutely incentivizes the production of more, which means more abused kids."
You believe in driving pedophiles in corners, and are then surprised that they group together in said corners you just drove them into. I'm not sure how that was an unexpected result?
"God damnit HN, I should have known a thread on a Tor node being shut down would bring out all the child porn apologists. Funny how that happens, eh?"
I should have known a thread on a TOR node being shut down would bring out all the irrational witch hunters. Funny how that happens, eh?