> Rust's advantage is that it forces you to at least pretend to handle the error
I'm not sure I would call this an advantage. See: Handling of Checked Exceptions in Java.
2,562 karma · joined March 3, 2008
I'm not sure I would call this an advantage. See: Handling of Checked Exceptions in Java.
It would not not be the same unless you change how scoping works in these instances, and that can introduce other complexities, e.g. how to limit scope so that some things are inaccessible to the catch block.
I'm not saying that coal is good or nuclear is bad or vice versa. As I said in my original comment, there is no one practical (in terms of safety, efficiency, cost etc) global energy solution right now. I don't believe any coal-powered plants should be built. Should existing ones be replaced by nuclear? Depends on the actual area, geo-political situation (which changes over time) etc.
My point is that failure of nuclear energy provision is demonstrably worse than the failure of any other options we've tried. Does this mean it's better/worse? Who knows.
But you simply cannot say that something is safe if <xyz>, especially when history says otherwise.
I'm flabbergasted at the number of people talking unironically about "human error" as if it's historically insignificant...
To be honest, you could probably make that argument for anything under question in any scenario. But even if we were to skip the logical loopholes ("We took it into account, but we decided the benefits outweighed the costs because of <fill in any reason>"), let's just look at the raw numbers or simply just historical facts. Have any disasters at coal plants rendered areas uninhabitable for centuries? OK, take one step back. Would those disasters have occurred if "all disaster scenarios [were] taken into account"?
The reality is that we have no one good and practical energy solution for the world. And even though I believe that there's no practical solution that can beat a tried and tested solution like nuclear in terms of efficiency, I also believe that there's been no tried and tested solution that's been worse in terms of failure.
Consider these within the context of the A->B->C->D example he gave:
PutLeftLegForward();
PutRightLegForward();
// Wrapper that utilizes the above functions
Walk(numberOfSteps);I'm sure many other commenters have singled out this comment, but do you have an example? I find this quite hard to believe. Surely this would have manifested elsewhere and people would have pointed it out ages ago? Nim compiles (or transpiles, if you prefer) to C/C++, after all.
Well, interesting is perhaps not the right word.
Disgusting.
Not at America, but toward my country's own education system.
My mother never cared about the money. In fact, she was offered huge salaries from so-called private schools (the wording/nomenclature is a story for another time). She never took it. Her main goal was always education for students who she felt were disenfranchised. Growing up, I'd often see her very sad about a bright student who got killed because of their surroundings or something else regarding their upbringing. But she always remained determined!
It breaks my heart these days to see that she is unhappy not because she is not able help the same students from the same backgrounds, but because she simply REFUSES to. She does not believe my country's education system is equipped to give them what they need. So, instead of taking a big salary from government (she is officially retired, btw) to teach "previously disadvantaged" students in government-endorsed programmes, she does it gratis when the students approach her personally.
I just realised why I never mentioned why she doesn't sign up for "government-sponsored" initiatives in terms of education. She - as do I - simply believes the standard they expect is not of the quality that should be given to the youth. So she will rather offer her standard "for free". I hope I don't have to explain why her method is not compatible with the paid-for alternative...
It's a bit tricky depending on your idea of what "free will" means, but essentially it can be argued that there's a difference non-trivial difference between free will and determinism.
If the development of the Universe is predetermined, then the Universe is deterministic (in some system of logic) and free will does not exist.
If the development of the Universe depends on the the outcome of truly random events, then the universe is non-deterministic, but this does not imply that free will exists.
Consider: Someone has to decide between two choices which for all intents and purposes are exactly the same when measured against each other. On the most fundamental level, the only way to break the deadlock is through a "random" selection. If this random selection is driven by the aforementioned random (possibly quantum) events, then is this really "free will"? After all, the person making the decision has no conscious control of the events influencing the decision process on that level. This implies that decision making ("will") is just a function acting on inputs.
http://tasvideos.org/Game/nes-super-mario-bros.html
[*] It's also worth noting that there are 2 categories for TAS timing: Humanly possible vs TAS-only. The former meaning that it's possible in theory for a human to achieve under "normal" conditions, the latter implying the opposite e.g. using left + right inputs at the same time which is not possible on a normal NES pad. The TAS in question was the current theoretical limit for humans.
... using the same techniques the TAS does.
It's possible (although unlikely) that a new glitch/exploit could be discovered that allows for faster times.
Here's an HN submission from 2012:
That is demonstrably false.
If weight Z = X intake + Y energy expenditure, then you can reduce Z by keeping X the same and increasing Y.
Obviously diet has much more of an impact than exercise, but it's not true to say that the only way to lose weight is to eat less.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C6d8VK...
That's pretty much xenophobia in a nutshell.
e.g. This is the kind of thing I find myself wondering very often while browsing our company's codebase:
"Why are we only appending the jurisdiction on this partner and not the others? Is this intentional or an oversight? Maybe the unit tests will tell me more..."
So from a practical point of view, I don't think that it's a myth at all...
This IMO has more to do with PR than anything else.
Well... marketing too. I've never felt comfortable with the term "auto pilot" as it is used in the context of Tesla's vehicles. This is potentially a finnicky topic, but I think there should be better standards and legislation around what can be reasonably marketed as "auto pilot".
Unless I'm missing something, 40% is actually a good result (given what they're trying to measure).
However, I think the more important statistic would be regarding how many injuries/fatalities does it reduce vs cause. Are there any studies on this?
Reflects my experience. I use Firefox at work, Chrome at home. Chrome RAM usage is much higher than FF. Not that I really mind - I have more than enough RAM to support it. But it often leaves me wondering if some tab/plugin/extension is misbehaving, which in turn forces me to close all my tabs only to find that the memory use stays high and the number of Chrome processes doesn't decrease as expected. I'm considering switching back to Firefox at home now.
EDIT: OK, tested with Firefox now. Number of process doesn't decrease as I close tabs either, but memory use is still considerably higher than Chrome.
How can you make two solid 2D squares occupy the space? They can't travel through each other, so...? Easy. Lift one of the squares into the 3rd Dimension, move it to the same X,Y coords, then drop it on the other (think of putting stacking 2 pieces of paper).
Similarly, you can have two 3D objects occupy the same space by "lifting" one into the 4th dimension, moving it to the same X,Y,Z coords as the other, and then "dropping it". You can "cheat" by thinking of the 4th dimension as time - one object travels through time, places itself at the same position of where the other object is, then returns. But as I said, that's "cheating".
// A Box that holds stuff
public class BoxOfStuff<TStuff>
{
public TStuff Value { get; private set; }
public BoxOfStuff(TStuff value)
{
Value = value;
}
}
// Class that holds methods for working with Boxes of stuff
public static class Ext
{
// Takes something and puts it in a box
public static BoxOfStuff<TStuff> PutInABox<TStuff>(this TStuff thingToPutInTheBox)
{
return new BoxOfStuff<TStuff>(thingToPutInTheBox);
}
// Converts a Box containing one thing into a Box containing something else
public static BoxOfStuff<TOtherStuff> ConvertBox<TStuff, TOtherStuff>(this BoxOfStuff<TStuff> theBoxItself,
Func<TStuff, BoxOfStuff<TOtherStuff>> functionThatConvertsTheBox)
{
return functionThatConvertsTheBox(theBoxItself.Value);
}
}
// Class that holds a string value
public class StringHolder
{
public string Value;
public StringHolder(string value)
{
Value = value;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Value;
}
}
var result = new StringHolder("A random string").PutInABox()
.ConvertBox(randomString => new Random((int)DateTime.Now.Ticks).Next().PutInABox()
.ConvertBox(randomNumber => (Guid.NewGuid()).PutInABox()
.ConvertBox(guid => ($"{randomString}, {randomNumber}, {guid}").PutInABox())));
Console.WriteLine(result);
// Compare the above result to this:
public static class LinqExt
{
public static IEnumerable<T> ToEnumerable<T>(this T t)
{
return new List<T> { t };
}
}
var linqResult = new StringHolder("A random string").ToEnumerable()
.SelectMany(randomString => new Random((int)DateTime.Now.Ticks).Next().ToEnumerable()
.SelectMany(randomNumber => Guid.NewGuid().ToEnumerable()
.SelectMany(guid => ($"{randomString}, {randomNumber}, {guid}").ToEnumerable())));
Console.WriteLine(linqResult);
This is analogous to:
IEnumerable + ToEnumerable (the Identity function) + SelectMany (the Bind function). To be honest, this is a fairly loose, non-rigorous definition even by programming standards, but if you've used LINQ before it should give you an idea of how useful Monads can be and how they can be used.
LINQ works the way it does because of Monads. In fact, if I were to add a Map function (Select) to BoxOfStuff and rename ConvertBox to SelectMany, I could use query syntax eg.
var result = from thing in myBoxOfStuff
select thing.ToString();