lucio

The key here is not to take the cursing personally. He's cursing the code not the coder. He don't hate specific persons. He can curse you on one not-so-good patch and praise you on another. The anger it's not directed at the person.

link?

He's tired. He's older. He mentioned several times how he's been developing this for decades. Maybe he is making a balance, maybe he thinks that the Kernel does not really need him so badly now, and he can take a time out.

The more exaggerated the cursing, the more problematic is the subject according to Linus. Linus' over the top cursing is a means to transmit his evaluation of how problematic some code is. It's never personal.

Show me an instance where his cursing is not related to kernel code.

>it’s really just an alternative syntax for C#

That's very true. Either C# or VB.NET, you're programming the NET Framework. All you can do in C# you can do in VB.NET, and even there's some features that are better implemented in VB.NET, like Type.Missing https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/eric_carter/2004/04/15/type...

Of course any language with "Basic" in its name will be look down, but in today's NET there's no objective reasons to do so. Nowadays, VB is a better choice than C# to develop in-house business management software.

That syntax was irregular but very useful. It was not surprising or confusing.

A$ = "ABCD"

MID(A$,2,2)="12"

PRINT $A

>A123

Twitter is now banning promoted tweets with the legal term "illegal alien"

I see fabulous opportunities to get creative in the code comments area.

Does this version compile TIFF?

What about compiling an animated GIF, I have a few ideas to abuse that feature...

>Why eight steps? Well, to differentiate between 256 equally likely possibilities requires eight bits. Each experiment, since it differentiates between two equally likely outcomes (pass and fail), provides one bit of information. Therefore, we need eight such experiments to give us the eight bits we need to determine the faulty optimization.

Is this explanation a little odd?

Each step in a binary search halves the amount of suspects, you need 8 steps because with 8 steps you go from 256 suspects to one.

I can't see it the way the article describes it.

It's just me? Anyone else found the article reasoning for 8 steps a little odd?

>what happened to letting the truth be debated a la the Socratic dialogue in the academia of all places! https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi...

So there's no more room for improvement at the microchip level. Will software become leaner? Is Moore's law reaching a plateau?

That's OK but when using "logs" it takes more time and tries to find a complex bug than to search for it using an interactive debug tool.

Have you seen the Hans Rosling talks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8t4k0Q8e8Y There's a few on TED talks. It's a must see.

Let's imagine a syntax-sugared Go...

Every function has a hidden "err" return value

Every function has an "exceptionExit:" block, by default it does just "return err;"

After every function call, an automatic "if err != nil {goto exceptionExit}" is added.

You can add an "exception" block to a function, it replaces the default.

Now you have function level exceptions in Go just by syntax sugar, without stack unwinding and without requiring new compiler functionality, just syntax sugar.

si vis pacem, para bellum

from the comments, don't kill the messenger

>Can I use this article as a case study for Journo students on 'How NOT to approach a topic'? You took a wonderful subject and turned it into a gloating, patrnonizing pile of crap. Bravo. The takeaways from this article essentially are 'Cheaper products perform less efficiently than more expensive ones' and 'India is full of poor people'. Yep, right, We did not know this earlier. Thanks for your investigative journalism.

How many of you were expecting a javascript-related article?

That's what Google spanner is claiming, that Spanner is Consistent and highly-Available (nine fives, or 99.99999% of the time available), which "in practice" they say is "CA".

What about partial partitions, let's say you have 7 nodes, and 4 of them can't see the other 3, while the client can see all of them?

There are systems tolerant to these partitions (see PAXOS)

If partition tolerance is the most important property to have, you can have it, as long as you don't need "C", consistency.

>Does this mean that Spanner is a CA system as defined by CAP? The short answer is “no” technically, but “yes” in effect and its users can and do assume CA.

>The purist answer is “no” because partitions can happen and in fact have happened at Google, and during (some) partitions, Spanner chooses C and forfeits A. It is technically a CP system. We explore the impact of partitions below.

...

>Conclusion

>---------

>Spanner reasonably claims to be an “effectively CA” system despite operating over a wide area, as it is always consistent and achieves greater than 5 9s availability.

From the paper

This article could be titled ORM considered harmful (2006)

http://blogs.tedneward.com/post/the-vietnam-of-computer-scie...

I think the facts should precede any statements of ideas in this case. Since the article do not present the facts as a sequence of events, the video I linked seems to be useful.

The video is about the facts, you can dismiss the extra 10% of the video. Unless he's hiding some facts, it seems like a good summary.

She was talking about her job, the fan was very polite, and after her response, sad when mistreated. You don't mistreat the people who pay for your product, even more when they're polite.

I can't see gender involved in this issue. Anyone treating a paying customer like that on a public forum, on a work-related issue, has high chances to be fired.

and then

https://twitter.com/DeroirGaming/status/1014564971416518656

How about analyzing the facts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q50oy4-UJM

Is this guy analysis correct?

That's a rational attitude to have once you're in an advanced civilized country and you can go to an emergency room and have adequate medication, you can eat (and more) by working 6 hs in front a computer, etc.

Rationality is the way-out of bad times (war, famine, plagues, economic depression), and a party buzzkill during good times (1st world today).

My feeling is that your comment is incorrect /s

Other considerations (individualism vs collectivism) are tightly related to the "human nature" consideration. It's way far easier to control speech on a collectivist society, for example. You need a degree of totalitarianism to ban speech and ideas.