"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection, except for the problem of too many layers of indirection."
Hence this level of indirection, the discrete "drive", is what he thinks should go poof.
First time I've heard that quote, but I love it. Reminds me of this one:
"There are only two hard problems in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors."
Binary: as easy as 1, 10, 11
Also the commas and binary mixed together are a little odd. Least of all because you didn't make all three two binary digits (i.e. 11, 10, 01).
Regardless that joke is going to cause more arguments than laughs.
You do not "read" binary from right to left. At least in English, the most significant digit is on the left, just like any other base (e.g. base 10, base 8, or base 89432890432).
Also, for your leading 0, I would write: Bob has 23 apples, and I have 5. I wouldn't write: Bob has 23 apples, and I have 05. Base 2 is not special, so I wouldn't write 01.
You can also turn your order argument on its head: since the order of digits in base 10 is exactly the same as base 2 (most significant on the left), you could say that "As easy as 1, 2, 3" should actually be read as "As easy as 3, 2, 1", which matches your binary reading "As easy as 3, 2, 1".
There are only 10 hard problems in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.
There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who know binary, those who don't, and those who start counting from zero.
That kills the joke. 'off-by-one' is subtler.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who know hexadecimal, and F the rest...
(I think it's funny though.)
- What goes "Pieces of seven! Pieces of seven!"
- Parity error
Look up "recursion" in the dictionary and it says: See Recursion.
You know why Complex Jokes aren't funny? Because the joke part is imaginary.
What's the best thing about telling UDP jokes? if don't You they get care it.
Don't forget that UDP allows repeats and drops!
A: Yes.
Turns out, the second one is originally from one Phil Karlton (as reported by Tim Bray [1] , that's enough authority for me), without the "off-by-one" part.
The first one, which I was goddamned sure was Dijkstra, is actually by David (not A.) Wheeler (via Butler Lampson) [2], inventor of the subroutine.
That rabbit-hole took me longer than expected. Hopefully I'm saving some time for someone else ;)
[1] https://twitter.com/timbray/status/506146595650699264
[2] http://www.dmst.aueb.gr/dds/pubs/inbook/beautiful_code/html/...
"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection"
"But that usually will create another problem."
-- David Wheeler
"...except for the problem of too many layers of indirection."
-- Kevlin Henney