ithinkso

I haven't tried Ruby at all to be honest. If I need to do some quick'n'dirty scratchpad calculations on x86 I'm using python but I find myself still using 'C-like' approach instead of idiomatic python. I.e. even 'for x in X:' gives me heebie-jeebies for some unexplained reason (though I use it). I think it's because I've been conditioned for so many years to think about data/code as just that, data in memory. So every time I need to access something I'm thinking *where* it is first, not about getting it - that's secondary and, paradoxically, unimportant. I'll use it in the next stage/line but by then I already have it (I don't know if that makes any sense at all).

It makes no sense to do it most of the time in most circumstances, and I think downvotes I'm getting represent that (though I'm not preaching it or anything, just commenting about my point of view), but if you have a hard deadline of X cycles you think about code differently.

I'm actually on the opposite side of this. I know HN is more web-focused so embedded isn't as much represented but I'm scared every time I'm trying to learn Javascript or even Rust.

Syntactic sugar complicates code for me, it may help to reveal the intent what the code is doing but I *have to* know how the code is doing it. Of course you can just learn what the compiler will do in every of those instances but that's a lot to learn and it increases exponentially. On the other hand in C you have assignments, conditionals, loops and function calls - nothing else.

In the end the code will do the same thing but I'm willing to spent few more keystrokes and maybe an added comment just for the peace of mind of knowing what is actually happening. (One may say that the assembler output is still a blackbox but the general structure of the computation will remain intact)

It may be outdated, I agree, but it's just something I can't shake off

Yes, I often feel like 'refactorability' is way undervalued. The focus is on writing abstractions that can be easily extended to handle more cases but as soon as some case doesn't fit, it will be hacked in because the code is abstracted in a very narrow way and cannot be easily refactored to accommodate this new case 'natively'.

Do that for a couple of years in a single codebase and the beautiful abstraction design has changed into a state machine with a transition between almost every pair of states

What do you mean? You pay in the country you live/work in. You get back your pension wherever you are, from every country you've worked for in your life. Sounds pretty fair to me

It's also problematic in other way, my friends moved to US for a job for few years and had kids there. US gives you citizenship by place of birth so the kids have US citizenship. Now that they are back they are in a bit of a pickle not knowing what to do, the kids might be screwed and own money to the US for nothing when they grow up but renouncing it now for them also doesn't make sense (if even possible) because they might want to have it, who knows.

Reinette were always my favorite apples, sort of popular in Poland but nor very 'presentable' [1]. Still, the best imho

[1] https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reneta#/media/Plik:Egremont_Ru...

> it's the same sort of trivially-blatantly-obvious thing as

> "quantum superpositions never actually collapse"

Popsci is fun,

Never stop learning, even if it's obvious.

Yes, I agree, but that's not what I was objecting to (pun intended).

I'm not from the US though so bankrupting private individuals through court costs is a science fiction for me

I understand what you're saying (in the first paragraph). I really do because I also went down this path. Self-reference is very tricky and it's way easier to trick yourself into proving things than to prove things.

You are referencing Godel and there is a reason why he only proved 'non-provability', namely Tarski's undefinability theorem[1]. In short, you cannot express the truthiness of a statement in the system within the system itself. This prohibits you to draw conclusions in a way you did above.

I'm of course no expert on the matter, and I might be wrong just as likely, but I'll encourage you not to make such strong, definitive statements. Maybe the reason for it is only that what you stated above would be a huge result in mathematics so one would think there is a mistake somewhere (especially since Liar's paradox is nothing new). And one would explore the subject further to find it rather than 'I post it on online forums because no one wants to accept my theory'

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theo...

This is a common misconception, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is only needed in criminal cases. In civil cases most often preponderance of the evidence (i.e. 'more likely that not') is enough

Or in other words - software isn't written to be used, it's written to be sold

Well, if you're powerful enough you can always fork to create Horcruxes

> If you farm the set of all possible x and try them to see what works you do not have an inverse function in your hands.

I'm not sure I follow, what do I have then? Could you give me an example?

In cryptography either you only need 'an x', in cases that the original x does not matter, or if it does, then you can just as easily find all x of size less than large enough N and find 'the x', it is still solely restricted by time.

Laplace's demon, information loss, Landauer's principle etc. are at most tangentially related to the problem discussed

That's how maths works. Hashes are trivially reversible, all it takes is time, no miracle needed.

Oracles in complexity theory are a bread and butter concept

To this day, constructive mathematicians at eBay are trying to close the remaining loophole in the ban's reasoning

It was serious. You haven't seen what I've seen.

ENV variables at every step? print them, build has a parser/codegen step? print everything it does, sanity check scripts? I always need to know what they did, setup scripts? That's the most important part, every .o file compiled and linked? show me, with the compile command for a good measure so all the -Ilibs's are there? of course, set -x? why not, need to wget/curl something? output goes to the log, is it in parallel? just append as it goes, build failed? start the teardown but make sure you add everything it does to the log

And as I wrote, I hope it all just terminates at the first error so I can tail the logs... but it's not always that pretty. I don't believe you've read those instead of tailing for an error or doing the fast scroll to find something looking somewhat off

I mean, I'm used to it now, I'll grep, less, tail and I'll find what I need, I'm just baffled that it has so much unnecessary data for every single build. At one company I've got good enough at it that I could press-and-hold pageup from the bottom in less and staring at the streaming bytes Matrix-style looking for a place of interest

And even those that are planning to live off of welfare... what else can you do. Welfare isn't that great and a vast majority (by a huge margin) has aspiration to have a better life so you only need to support those who can't work and those who will not work no matter what. You can force the latter by starvation but if they have such low needs anyway they will find the easiest way to sustain themselves and will be a bigger problem to others one way or another. Welfare is a cheap price to pay

It's a strange way of thinking that I don't fully understand. Why would one choose to live with homelessness problem rather than pay to solve it and get them off the streets? Only because those paid 'don't deserve it' so now both parties live non-optimally. Some weird twist on a prisoner's dilemma

What I don't understand is why (at least in places I worked at) CI/build systems are configured to print absolutely everything they do, who reads that?

Hopefully error msg is at the end so you can go to the end of the 100kB worth of logs to find what failed. If it's no at the end though it's kinda funny how you just mindlessly scroll through a garbage and sort of instinctively identify what 'looks like normal garbage' vs 'looks like a bit more suspicious garbage', just by it's shape

You'd think that if this was a legit defense they would use it in court, instead of "There has been no data breach, and no customer data has been exposed to any third party" clinging to anything irrelevant, as I'm sure they don't hire incompetent lawyers waiting for an online poster to come up with a solution

I think GDPR discussions are always heated on the 'EU vs US' line because of different approach to trust in the govt. In the EU people tend to (surprisingly maybe) trust politicians more because they at least want to be re-elected and distrust corporations/billionaires because they want to increase profit. In the US, I think, it's different, there is a distrust in the government because they are here to get us and more trust (surprisingly maybe) in corporations/billionaires because they are just like me working hard to earn money

Selling/collecting - I'm glad that GDPR seems to treat them at almost equal footing, even harder to prosecute if you leave a huge backdoor

It's my data - fuck off, I'm interested in the business you're offering, not increasing your bottom-line at the expense of my privacy and especially I don't want to have a profile of me created just because you can. If I haven't consented to it, you won't do that - simple as that

> In every GDPR related thread people complain that the law is not achieving its objectives (which you’re almost doing here also, with your “maybe it will eventually work” comment), but the law is doing exactly what it’s designed to do.

I think you might be misinterpreting those comments. It's not that hard to follow GDPR, what's hard is to work around it. If you want to do exactly what you did before but you want to weasel your way around GDPR it's not impossible, unfortunately, but harder.

And people are complaining about it not achieving its objectives precisely because you can weasel your way around and that's why we have those stupid 'Accept all cookies' huge buttons and 'Change settings' small ones, that later change to another big 'Accept all' and even smaller 'reject'.

Stop selling user's data without their consent and GDPR is a breeze to be complaint with. Try still selling it, eliciting the consent via dark patters, and complain how hard and complicated it is.

> you may not realize how accurate that is because the amount that will end up being paid is far far less after all the bribing

Sources? (Actually curious if there is some published statistics)

Bureaucracy with all it's faults still has quite a lot of checks and balances that have to add up so I wonder how many appeal results are there that are not as interesting as the first fines reported

As long as fines are priced into the cost of doing shady business they'll be paid. Hopefully they will rise enough so that it's no longer profitable to risk them - we'll see then if the 'tariffs' as you call them will continue or will they stop

I love the fact that 'at night' is still a correct term but it's only 45 min for ISS.

It's in Europe the same way it has always been. UK is no longer in the EU

You are being downvoted, as should you, but I still want to answer your questions.

> Not sure what language you speak natively

Polish

>but no one corrects Italians for saying "Germania" instead of Deutschland, nor Spaniards for saying "Nueva York", nor the French for saying "Angleterre".

It's literally the second thing people learn when learning a second language. The first is how to say your name, the second is where are you from. And then you pretend to be from somewhere else and do to the above. After the first lesson of any language the only thing you know is your name and names of other countries lol so I'm not sure what are you talking about

Ej, co kurwa? Jeszcze mi powiesz że wychodzi się na dwór a nie na pole ;)

Susan Wojcicki - polish people would immediately assume it's written online and would correct the surname to Wójcicki because it makes much more sense grammatically speaking and I think that's what it was originally before being anglicized.

Note that 'ó' in not a form of 'o' but of 'u' so subsequent pronunciations with 'o' sounds a bit weird for us polish speakers

Celebrating incorrectness, eh? Nothing wrong with being wrong, but not willing to learn... I don't know.

> If you speak any non-English language, you will know that this obsession with getting English-language speakers to pronounce foreign words "correctly" is unique

It's not unique, you think is unique because you are English-language speaker. Anyone speaking X natively will correct others learning X if they ask, but they will not mention it or pay attention to it if they are just talking, only encourage it. The proper 'correctness' will come much later when you really want to learn the language but at that point you will ask for the correcting yourself

And if you mean the names of people/places/movies/etc. how can you not be corrected? It's literally the name you are trying to say