kindfellow92

It’s not a currency. It’s digital gold. Gold isn’t easy to exchange and it’s deflationary but it’s a good place to store your money for the long term, especially if you live in an unstable country.

What makes bitcoin valuable is that it’s gold without any of the downsides of gold. Hop in an airplane with the equivalent of millions of dollars in your pocket without having to trust or ask permission from anyone.

Inspiring to see successful startup founders re-investing in the community:

    Andy Hertzfeld
    Mitch Kapor
    Patrick Collison
    Drew Houston
    Alex Payne
    Josh Elkes
    Carlin Wiegner
    Notion
    UCSF

I fully support Mozilla for doing this. Developing a browser is expensive and money doesn’t grow on trees. Cheers Mozilla

Are you saying black people can’t take a joke? Holy crap dude.

What is the target audience of this? What are the intended use cases?

Is this supposed to be used directly by users or as an API for a user-facing application? How is this different from a document DB like MongoDB?

Bitcoin is modern gold. You can travel across borders with literally millions in your pocket without having to trust anyone. If you can’t see the value of that then you are being willfully ignorant.

This is just your bias disguised as virtue. Bitcoin is a blip compared to everything that “wastes” energy.

By the way there is no such thing as a waste of energy. This isn’t soviet Russia, neither you nor the government dictate how one is allowed to use energy. As long as you have the funds to pay for it, you are free to use the electricity how you see fit.

If you’re reasonably concerned about the environmental concerns of how energy is produced, take it up with the producers. Stop technology-shaming.

Well, the go standard library is mostly written in Go, and Joy is supposed to convert go... so shouldn’t this just work?

There is a statement in that document that says that much of the standard library hasn’t been translated but isn’t most of the Go standard library written in Go? Why can’t Joy convert the standard library?

“Nobody is saying anything other than that. They're pointing out how dumb the decision is.”

I think filtering people based on ability to solve trivial binary tree manipulation problems is brilliant. Seems to objectively be working out great for google thus far.

Welcome to the free market, where private companies are free to hire or not hire at will based on criteria that works for them. Writing OSS doesn’t entitle you to any job.

Also “inverting” a binary tree is a trivial computation exercise. There’s a difference between engineering and scripting. Homebrew is very much a scripting problem.

You don’t need to teach a child that 1+1=2, they already know it’s true. You just need to teach them what the symbols mean. Every child knows that you can put two rocks together.

You only need multi volumes to prove 1 + 1 = 2 if you start with first order logic. If you start with the rules of basic arithmetic, it takes less than a page.

There is no fundamental difference when changing your starting assumptions other than one set of assumptions might prove more things than the other. From the perspective of single proof, either is equally as good. We axiomatically know basic arithmetic to be true, just as we axiomatically know first order logic to be true.

Startup idea: application that automatically syndicates comment threads in your email inbox back to your website.

It was underhanded because you were giving a compliment but meant it to be an insult. Your reply here is willful ignorance and it’s done with malicious intent.

The fact that you are being defended shows that HN is a echo chamber that ultimately supports bullies like you even if they break the rules.

Companies shouldn’t burn people out in the first place. Calling this bandaid a “Sabbatical” is just marketing to avoid looking bad for their poor management. They should use another word and not tarnish the very old tradition of academic sabbaticals.

Read first paragraph after “In comments” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html doesn’t matter if you agree, snark is not supported here.

On the other it’s fine if you agree with tptacek’s intent but you were more clear and civil with your point. Tptacek’s comment comes off as pretentious and insulting, and doesn’t promote good faith discussion.

In C++ there is at most only one compare (presumably at the spot where the exception was detected). In Rust there is a compare all the way up the stack after every function call site, and it is executed if an error happens or not.

This “Sabbatical” trend in software companies is really toxic. It’s a justification that allows companies to burn people out without looking bad. A sustainable interesting career doesn’t need a break. It’s a subtle admission that you’re overworked and your work is monotonous, which are both signs of a poorly managed company.

Sabbaticals are reserved for tenured professors who have been working for a lifetime so they can achieve something non-academic. It should not become a euphemism for breaks that burnt out programmers who lack time management skills take so they can get their life together.

> They only execute instructions when they happen... but they still inhibit the optimizer when they don't. Calls that may throw act like branches in the control flow graph.

This is a fair point and elucidates the trade off being made. Perhaps this is the reason C++11 has the “nothrow” attribute.

It’s not exactly tied to that implementation but because error sum types are runtime values, it’s not clear whether a statement like “return foo” should return a normal value or do stack unwinding.

I agree with your final point. Sadly Rust’s model for errors is tied to a specific implementation. That is, you must issue check instructions after every function call. In C++, errors are truly zero-cost: Exceptions only cause overheard when they happen. (Also in C++, different exception handling implementations are supported)

Rust could do something like this but it would need syntactic support for something like “throw.” In this hypothetical world, on throw the compiler could generate code that does the unwinding and all that. When a normal value is returned, it would just return as normal. The function call ABI would be one such that functions that returned Result<T> and returned normally would be assumed to have succeeded. Actually Result<T> wouldn’t need to be a real type, just decoration at the syntax level.

Ditto, y’all were a good crowd

LOL eigenmachter here. Pouring one out for john2 and his gf

Synergy (https://symless.com/synergy) may have had something to do with it.

Seems like Microsoft is potentially being targeted for writing an x86 emulator https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/x86-approaching-40-sti...

ISAs can be patented. Intel is patenting their latest AVX/SSE instructions.

“inline” is more about linkage than about actual inlining. The compiler will in-line regardless of that attribute.

Constexpr is not necessary. Only required if you want to ensure that a variable is initialized with a pre-computed value. The compiler will optimize in either case if it can, regardless of the constexpr attribute.

GCC extensions make my brain hurt :( Should just use C++ at that point:

    template<class T>
    bool is_space(const T & x) {
        return x == ‘ ‘ || x == ‘\n’;
    }