Are Python List Comprehensions really hard for people? I feel like my memory of learning them was I saw one in production code I was modifying, intuited what it did, pulled open a REPL and played with it for a bit, and then moved on.
338 karma · joined October 28, 2015
Why are you even doing this? This isn't an acceptable way to write code.
> Plus it's so verbose and horizontal, half the time if you want descriptive names you're gonna write something so verbose it doesn't even make it that much more readable.
If your list comprehension is more than 80 characters wide, it's not because list comprehensions are bad, it's because you did something too complicated. Pull it into a function and name it so people know what the hell you're doing.
Eh, at least that doesn't block my view when I'm standing behind you.
Honestly, when I hear this, I think, "Why?" You want block the views of the people behind you and watch Prince on a 3x5in screen when he's physically right in front of you just so you have some grainy, poorly-lit photos of your own instead of looking at the professional photos of Prince that are available online? It harms the experience of other fans. It harms your own experience. It harms the performer's bottom line. There's literally no upside to this.
Practice some immediacy.
Absolutely not. Python has a much more mature set of libraries which are much better designed, better tooling, and a much more reasonable type system, and the community has only recently begun to be polluted by Web 2.0 "move fast and break things" mentality. The Node ecosystem is built on that mentality, and while outlier developers at the front line of the JS community are able to be extraordinarily productive in JS/Node, developers building user-facing programs just get bogged down in breaking changes in dependencies, buggy and poorly-designed 0.x libraries, untraceable framework code that prioritizes configuration over convention, and intractable errors caused by a broken type system (this final issue is significantly improved in ES6).
Source: Worked in Python 2.x for a few years, worked in Node for a few years, currently work in Python 3.x and Node (general design is to limit Node to compiling and testing the browser-based part of our product). JS/Node is maybe 20% of our code, 20% of our features, 50% of our dev time, and 80% of our bugs.
Do you even know what Internet.org is? They're providing free access to a subset of the internet that Facebook controls, while forcing people to pay if they want to access the internet as a whole. The entire reason Internet.org exists is to create a Facebook monopoly on data access in developing countries.
Your entire comment is naive.
It's disingenuous to say that Tor reacted only after being deanonymized personally:
1. It was well known that Nick Mathewson worked for Tor long before this attack.
2. Tor added code that allowed them to detect the attack before they knew their IPs were deanonymized: that's the only way they found out their IPs were deanonymized.
> The problem with bash is if you have different operating systems spread around, like CentOS 5, 6, 7 in our case, you wind up with a whole bunch of conditions figuring out what to do for specific OS versions.
This is a very poor approach to this problem in this situation. You're supporting 3 systems. It's not unreasonable to maintain 3 branches for 3 branches of the code, and with tools like `git` it's easy to backport features when it's possible without code change. This also gives you better measurement of the cost of maintaining support for legacy systems so you know when it's time to pay the cost of upgrading. And when you do upgrade, you simply stop patching the CentOS 5 branch, and you're not left with a bunch of if statements in your active codebase testing for a system that you no longer care about.
SaltStack might do better when targeting, for example, many many different Linux distros. But even then, it only solves a 99% use case, and the tools are opaque enough that fixing the 1% may take just as much time as writing more portable bash.
> There's also the non-DRYness of "a whole bunch of bash scripts." You could maybe figure out some sort of include system to avoid repetition, but it's bash... it won't be pretty.
It's really not that complicated or bad. `source` is typically all you need.
There's also a larger antipattern here, which is that if your configuration is so complicated that you're feeling pain, you're probably not curating your dependencies very well. Configuration isn't the worst way in which you're going to feel this pain: if you're letting so many dependencies into your system that you're having trouble installing them all, you're almost certainly installing a lot of bad libraries and you're going to find that you also have trouble implementing features using libraries that are poorly-designed. I'm definitely not espousing a blanket fear of NIH code, but if you don't take care on which dependencies you decide to include, you're going to end up with a lot of problems.
The problem with most of the configuration management tools is that you're inherently not trying to "configure" anything: you're either installing or upgrading stuff that's just not there, which is inherently a programatic task. Configurations for a configuration manager end up being a lot of calls out to basic bash programs anyway, except now they're written through interfaces that are only marginally different from XML, and you end up having to submit a patch to an upstream recipe to just get it to add an obscure flag. Gross. Have you forgotten that you're a programmer? Write a program, for Christ's sake!
If it's dull, it isn't pleasure.
The solution to this problem is software that is free as in freedom, not snarky comments in support of MS.
The provided script:
1. Is FOSS. You can audit it before running.
2. Is an example, not required. You can write your own script from scratch if you want, or even do it by hand (although this would be admittedly tedious to do every 90 days).
> and they use Google as the gatekeeper of who is allowed a certificate[1].
That's a drastic oversimplification. The Google Safe Browsing API lists phishing and malware sites. I can see some concern that Google might mark sites as phishing or malware for political reasons or something, but so far I know of no cases of that happening. In fact, high-profile sites that do contain a lot of malware have been left unmarked: see Pirate Bay, Kickass Torrents, MegaUploads. I definitely have concerns about censorship, but so far I see no evidence that's happening. If you have such evidence, I'd be very receptive to seeing it.
> We are still short an option that issues certificates that are valid for 1+ years
That's not something I want, or something that's good for the security of the internet.
> can be used for any purpose and doesn't pass every request to a corporation for approval.
As long as the limitation continues to be on malware, I'm fine with it, and I'm not sure why you aren't.
P.S. To be clear, I know very little about StartCom and am not defending or attacking them.
Or, you can get fired. You don't have to look far for examples of this happening. I don't support radical feminism, but I'm also not ready to martyr myself over it if that can be avoided. Losing your job and social standing does nobody any good.
> > for men to control the public discourse and women be trivialized? That's not what I want. I want actual equality.
> Strawman, and you know it.
You literally said:
> > feminism isn't one set of ideas, but a diverse set of ideas
> Irrelevant. What matters is the people who have social currency and power today, and they're the toxic variety of feminist.
You literally said that all the feminists who are not the feminists you're railing against are irrelevant. If that's a strawman, it's a strawman that you said, and I can only respond to what you say.
> Today's feminist errors in assuming that unequal outcome implies unequal treatment. That's the part where feminism diverges from reality.
"Today's feminist" as you claim, a single entity, does not exist.
> It's not useful to suggest that I must either support feminism (whatever you say it means) or support male superiority.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is equally not useful to suggest that women either give up the title and role of feminism or support female superiority.
More likely, the path to reason is for reasonable feminists to hear how important this issue is from reasonable men, and start taking our side.
It's political suicide for a man to publicly stand against radical feminism. It's not political suicide for a moderate feminist to stand against radical feminism.
If you're incapable of recognizing that feminism isn't one set of ideas, but a diverse set of ideas, you're just as bad as those who espouse the Duluth model. You accuse all feminists of declaring men guilty until proven innocent, but in doing so, you're declaring all feminists guilty even despite the fact that I've already shown some of them to be innocent. And what's more, you're alienating a lot of feminists who would be on your side.
> That idea is not consistent with my experience.
Which is why I tried to expand your experience by quoting major feminist writers. Do you not realize that your experience is limited?
> These days, every time I hear someone arguing against equal treatment, against free speech, against due process, and again diversity of opinion, that person is a self-proclaimed feminist.
Every time I see a rapist on the news that person is a self-proclaimed man. If you're going to (correctly) complain about being judged by a few poor examples of our gender, you should recognize the hypocrisy of judging all feminists by a few poor examples of their movement.
I don't think this is where I want to draw the argument. If someone makes an insensitive joke, it's true that the social justice movement often reacts disproportionately, but I'm not that worried about people's right to make insensitive jokes. I'm much more worried about the people who are sharing opinions that are perfectly reasonable and necessary to the public discourse and are being squashed. Erika Christakis presented a reasoned argument at Yale for free speech, and people were calling for her and her husband to resign. This isn't a matter of lacking a sense of humor, this is an active campaign to forcibly silence discussion.
Some things said by feminists:
* "Men weren’t really the enemy — they were fellow victims suffering from an outmoded masculine mystique that made them feel unnecessarily inadequate when there were no bears to kill." -- Betty Friedan
* "Women and men communicate differently, often on entirely different planes. But just as men have failed us, we have failed them. It has been one of our great collective female shortcomings to presume that whatever we do not perceive simply isn't there, or that whatever is not communicated in our language is not intelligible speech." ― Norah Vincent
* I can't find the reference, but I seem to remember that the first person to widely spread the idea that it's possible for men to be raped was a feminist.
Remember that the college kids at Yale are exactly that: kids. I remember a time shortly after I became an atheist where I was angry at everyone religious for wronging me. It took me a while to realize that many religious people weren't horrible people, they were just humans, who were doing the wrong thing while trying their best to do the right thing. College students who are newly finding their voices are defining the conversation here, but they're not bad people, they just haven't realized yet that the people who they're attacking are just humans, too.
Dismissing something as a red herring without even bringing it up in a classroom avoids a key responsibility of an educator: students need to be able to recognize red herrings and respond to them as such. Red herrings occur in the real world. The role of the educator is not to dictate accurate information, it's to teach people how to critically process information.
The news, on the other hand, does have the responsibility to dictate accurate information. As such, the only opinions that matter are the opinions of experts, and those should be subservient to data. "Fair and balanced" doesn't often matter because if there are really two sides to the issue, the "information" isn't accurate enough to be presenting to an inexpert public anyway. Debates should happen between experts based on the data, without politicization, and news should report the results.
That's not something I'm going to do. I don't subscribe to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and I want nothing to do with misogyny. We're not doing ourselves any favors by associating with terrible people just because they agree with us on some issues.
sudo service ircd-irc2 restartConsider an experiment where your hypothesis is that cold temperatures cause the common cold. This is a good example for a thought experiment because we "know the answer" in a way (there have been a lot of experiments on this). The null hypothesis in this case is that cold temperatures are uncorrelated with incidence of the common cold.
You place people in isolation in cold areas and a control group in warm areas, and study how many get the common cold. None of the people who didn't already have colds get the common cold: because they are in isolation and the common cold is caused by rhinoviruses (which they can't get because they are in isolation), you get exactly the same results.
This disproves the hypothesis, but it does not prove the null hypothesis, that cold temperatures and the common cold are unrelated. Cold temperatures are, in fact, related to the common cold.
Try a second experiment: you place people in groups of five in cold areas and in warm areas, and discover a moderately high correlation between cold temperature and incidence of the common cold. This disproves the null hypothesis. But the simple hypothesis that cold temperature causes the common cold has also been disproven by your first experiment.
The reason for this is that the correlation between cold temperature and the common cold is a dependent correlation: given that rhinovirus is present in the system cold temperature is correlated with incidence of common cold (rhinoviruses reproduce ideally at temperatures significantly lower than human homeostatic temperature).
The null hypothesis is not just a statement that there is no independent correlation, it's a statement that there is no independent or dependent correlation. As such, the null hypothesis is an extremely broad hypothesis which is impossible to practically prove. This is why there's such a focus on finding correlations rather than finding non-correlations: you aren't going to prove the null hypothesis.
sudo service ircd-irc2 restart