mfukar

That is both good and bad advice. Good because yes, programmers must quickly look at others' code and be exposed to the idioms and the anti-patterns. Bad because just by looking at something the newbies don't immediately connect it with one category or another, instruction is necessary to avoid them resorting to anti-patterns (as it is ironically the case with many things Linux).

> Sure we can. Recompile glibc, dynamic linking, pow.

Oh, so I have to maintain glibc. That's the alternative, we are in complete agreement.

> I wouldn't say that bug you referenced is a strike against C; it could happen in any language that was locale-aware and parsing floats.

I was responding to a very specific (and pointed) question.

> For what it's worth, these macros in libcperciva are perfectly readable and maintainable:

I'm not contesting that, they might be. The one you list looks fine at a glance, but that doesn't prove anything.

"Do not assume" doesn't really mean or imply "do not target", so stop being defensive. It's good advice.

> More to the point, why do they need to be maintainable? When was the last time you maintained the strtof function in your C library?

A few years ago. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15744

Acting like you can get anything done right in C simply because it's self-contained is proven wrong every day. It's good practice, yes, but doesn't magically (we like this word now) make us immune to error. Everything needs to be maintainable, even if it is proven to be correct, for the simple reason that we can't just replace broken pieces of code with the same simplicity we can replace a broken fridge.

Also, if there's anything we know about code, is that we are constantly trying to invent new ways to expose it to a new interface - thereby breaking it.

Just so I know what bank(s) to avoid, which one is (or are) this?

I'd heard the bar for humour had been lowered, but I didn't know how low.

> It's not an illusion, 1q2w3e4r5t is indeed better than aaaaaaaaa, even if it's just the numbers interleaved with qwerty (and probably easy to brute force generate up to it).

In this case, we're talking 'better' but still bullshit [1]. Calling it 'better' makes no meaningful distinction whatsoever in practice.

[1] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/209/zxcvbn/test/index.ht...

Great, now anyone knows how to temporarily satisfy you while delivering nothing of what you actually want in the long run.

It's interesting that you use quotes that don't appear in the text, because if passing those messages was the intention of the writer they succeeded beautifully.

7-10 minutes from home. Best commute of in my entire life so far.

What does phishing have to do with receiving emails?

How about punching a policeman, instead, and cut down on the time until you are transferred to a cell?

I'm pretty sure there's a common saying about two lefts not making a right. Or two rights not making a wrong? Can't quite remember.

Apparently "innocent until proven otherwise" also doesn't resemble "How the world should be" in this comment.

There no reason to "panic" about perfectly reasonable, valid use cases. `head` and `tail` in Haskell are badly designed (to address one of your examples), which is why every SO question about them and every question on haskell-beginners ends with the same answer: don't use them, pattern match instead.

As the paper [http://shattered.io/static/shattered.pdf] says:

> This is an identical-prefix collision attack, where a given prefix P is extended with two distinct near-collision block pairs such that they collide for any suffix S

The near-collision block pairs is the difference everyone can see in the image. Whoever created the PDFs did everyone the courtesy of keeping the suffix the same. There's numerous examples already of different PDFs with the same hash.

I build a bunch of home automation stuff (as a hobby) using Pis and other microcontrollers. Performance in those things translates almost directly to power savings, and is very desirable.

OTOH, I've never encountered an issue like this on those systems.. (yet)

System calls in Linux are not faster than not doing them.

Despite what anyone will claim, good journalism still exists. I am not going to discuss obviously false generalisations.

You say "media" as if it's a singular entity. It is not. It encompasses Fox News (which I don't watch but I gather is a cesspool), The London Review of Books, Vogue, Infowars, YouTube, etc. A set of _competing_ companies. Not all of them support or supported (the Iraq) war. Like so many others that refer to "the media" in the same way, I have to ask:

Are you sure you're not falling into the trap of "I didn't see it, so it doesn't exist"?

Compilers operate under rules. The rules in this case say the null test is redundant.

You could argue the rules are "wrong", but that's a totally different topic.

None of the things you write about apply only to "smart, successful people". Your whole example hinges not on the hikers being stupid or smart or successful or failures, but unprepared and improperly guided. We could spread the blame for that all around and outside your group of hikers.

Then again, nothing the article writes about is exclusive to "smart, successful people", so all in all, what exactly are we talking about?

As well-off as people are, they tend to view problems they don't face as solved. Therefore they turn their attention to what _they_ view as a problem. In a very crude example, the Bay Area people don't care about the wars in the Middle East - they're not a problem as far as they're concerned. Their exclusion from places they want to work and the climbing housing prices though, yuck.

Intelligence, Nazi references, and our lack of proper definitions aside, societies were formed to cater to the lowest common denominator. That doesn't mean that the construct itself is "dumb" - whatever that may mean for a concept. It just means that not everyone can be happy with how it works, all the time.

> Not to diagnose your friend

Then please don't.

Can't tell if you're serious or just have an aptitude at this.

But how can GH establish intent? Legally it's unenforceable (good luck getting an answer from my lawyer), practically it's irrelevant (I will archive this data now, maybe in the future I will be convinced that selling them is ethical), etc.

Sure, in hindsight, it'll all be obvious..

Rust marketing.

TL;DR: if you don't debate, you lose the argument.