Oxryly

Blizzard didn't pay out much in royalties in those days. Now Diablo 2 was a different matter...

Linus didn't write it. He's certainly modified it but it was written by others. For example the eval.c header sez:

* written 1986 by Daniel Lawrence * modified by Petri Kutvonen

I'm sure someone else knows more about it's history.

Naughty Dog is hiring (http://www.naughtydog.com/). Our jobs section isn't listing the positions, but we are hiring programmers, designers, and artists.

Email: jobs@naughtydog.com

Any AI in use won't look like AI. When it becomes useful it gets decomposed into controllable components and then used. But it is used in many places.

Part of how C++ is successful is that it retains C compatibility, and C accurately models how the computer actually works (at least computers of the 70s and 80s, which is all we know how to program well). Lovely languages like lisp, python, haskell may be nicer to work with, but they do not model the underlying machine properly, and for so many problem domains that is just not acceptable. It's not just a performance question.

And then C++ implements several programming paradigms (object oriented, generic, etc) without compromising that machine model.

Plus Bjarne was truly correct when he said: "there are languages people complain about, and there are languages nobody uses."

Agreed. I avoid merging (potentially extensive) outside changes/commits into my modified local files. It always seemed like a risky and unwise procedure in CVS and Perforce.

I think Git's alternative of stash, pull, pop is an improvement. That way I can fix conflicts properly at each stage, and handle big changes before reapplying my hacked up stuff.

That sounds like bad git courtesy. There's papering over mistakes and then there's hiding the entire history of a big change...

> I like seeing my mistakes and reasons for doing things.

I suppose the point of Linus' rant is: would you want other people to see your mistakes? (goes without saying you would want them to see your reasons for doing things.)

Some sort of reverse workplace discrimination? Its certainly a red flag of some sort.

Heavy handed, sure... maybe even micromanaging, but not an unreasonable idea.

Same here :)

Diabetes: do you have type 1 or type 2?

Dietary (coupled with lifestyle) changes can produce lower inflammation and better blood sugar control. These two things attained early and often enough are enough to help avoid obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, various auto-immune diseases.

These changes will leave you healthier overall, something that cannot be said of surgery or drugs.

This wouldn't in any way be exaggerated to sell his book, now would it?

Anyone here use this for anything?

It sounds like the Hacker Diet is pushing for the magic here. Do extra calories you eat magically become fat? If not, then how do they become fat? If you exercise to burn fat, what's to stop you from becoming cripplingly exhausted rather than burn even a gram a fat?

If we can establish the body's mechanism for building fat or burning it, that is the thread that will unravel most fad diets, exercise regimens, and theories. If you take the time to understand the hormone feedback and homeostasis system involved in fat building/burning, then simplistic "eat less burn more" approach begins to break down. You can see that eating certain foods certain ways actually stimulates your metabolism and triggers fat burning. Also, certain approaches to exercise actually trigger fat building.

> More accurate would be food = energy, exercise = energy expenditure, obesity = prolonged energy surplus stored as fat, and weight loss = prolonged calorie deficit leading to fat reduction.

This view turns the human body into a very simple black box. That's an awfully medieval approach.

If you're talking about the title, I'll agree it's a tad sensationalistic.

If it's your view that the statement has wider meaning, I'd say turn it on its head: consider nutrition to be the first and best application of medicine.

If you had a chronic health condition (e.g. thyroid problem, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, migraines, etc etc) and you had three options: diet change, drugs, or surgery. Which would you choose every time? Which do you think would be healthier for you overall? Lead to more longevity, better quality of life, etc?

Nutrition certainly is medicine, and medicine at its cheapest and most effective.

They contradict where the Hacker's Diet makes no attempt to differentiate between types of calories.

For the Hacker Diet, all calories count against your total the same way. There's no concept of calories that throw off your blood sugar and consequently your insulin, and those that help maintain it. Therefore there's no attempt to manage the core fat building or fat burning mechanism of the body. It just pretends that food = bad and exercise = good.

I think the point is the hormone regulation is exceedingly complex and attempts to circumvent it either won't work or will have unintended consequences. The body can regulate itself if you let it.

Obesity is at record levels in Japan.

To have the Okinawan (or Japanese) diet work for you, you'll not only have to follow it closely you'll also need to live the traditional Japanese lifestyle.

Atkins isn't the runaway success because its a particular variety of low carb diet. Its also very restrictive, primarily during the "induction" phase. If you want to see other low carb diets that may be more manageable, try South Beach or Paleo.

The low carb diets work... its just that they are very difficult to follow for most people. If you live in the US and have a fairly normal lifetyle, you will eat too much carbs unless you really go out of your way to avoid bread, rice, sodas (or just about any drink besides water), fruit, etc.

> "The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis—the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body."

> "Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated—either chronically of after a meal—we accumulate fat in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel."

These are the central ideas to weight management.

Do you have a link/title for any of Appel's better papers?

Cool system. As someone else pointed out, the station select map should have some sort of "you are here" indication showing which station you're at.

I suppose one (potentially minor) ongoing expense with this setup would be that every kiosk would need to be in a its particular location's "mode"... currently every kiosk runs exactly the same way -- location agnostic.

#8 is a variant of the Buddhist notion of keeping a "beginner mind". Perhaps another approach is savoring your humility.

Oddly, its the only idea where the more seriously you take it the less you believe it. Or something...

> And as a hacker, I really appreciate a binary rule to evaluate something so complex. Thank you!

This tripped my sarcasm detector...

I would suggest taking a closer look at those links. They bring up another point in that you'll only find current, usable, robust support for SIMD in C++:

The first link is just a paper; the second is a 1.0 release that is seven years old, it only supports SSE, and it's all in French; the third is only for Mono, it only supports SSE and its SSE support is old and incomplete.

On the other hand, if you try to use SIMD types and intrinsics in C++ you'll find current and comprehensive support from the major compilers on all SIMD platforms.

(I'd love to use a current and comprehensive version of Haskell SIMD, but its just not ready for prime time.)

> C programmers have more freedom to arrange data in memory to exploit locality

I think just about everyone here is underestimating the impact of this one "feature". Most optimization approaches are grounded in 1970s computer hardware, where CPU speed and memory speed were two aspects of the approach. That's not the case anymore... memory access times absolutely dominate on modern hardware. Just lookup the number of instruction cycles a cache miss takes for your favorite system. Its appalling.

C and C++ have been able to stay ahead of the curve because they allow strict control over memory layout. Ocaml is often brought up as a competitor, but storing a floating point value in ocaml requires a boxed pointer! Nevermind trying to make an aggregate structure that includes floats and other types bundled together... everything will get boxed and the cache never stands a chance.

C and C++ are the only fully current languages that let you bundle your data exactly as you need it in as small space and in appropriately sized chunks such that memory access doesn't grind your program down. Of course you can fail to take advantage of this ability and write slow code in C or C++; in which case you'll match the benchmarks for your other favorite languages and maybe make a blog post about it. That'd be missing the point though...

For the given example code the answer is to use the underlying SIMD types and intrinsic instructions. If you're on Intel or PowerPC then the SSE or Altivec registers and instructions are available. Use them and you'll beat any compiler optimization every time. And, most importantly, the chances that up-to-date SIMD types and intrinsics will be available in any language but C/C++ is vanishingly small. Java, Ocaml, Haskell... you name it, you can't properly use SIMD (AFAIK... please let me know if there are exceptions).

And if you're application doesn't fit the native SIMD properly, there's no chance the compiler can really do anything meaningful with it anyway.

That sounds implausible on the face of it. Its safer to let the waste contact the groundwater than to try not to...?

Sounds difficult to pull off without sounding like a jerk.

Is this because Linus gave a git talk at Google calling them stupid for relying on Subversion?