tempguy9999

Wow, you're even more noise sensitive that me. Suggestion: noise cancelling headphones. Good ones are really effective.

Yep, sorry, but at the very least destroying your employer's property... I mean, do I have to spell it out.

Agreed! - so walk down the corridor and find out why.

Think: someone must have been feeding the printer paper or it would have run out years ago. It's there for a reason. See possibly why in my other comment.

> The action of taking down the fence may not be based on ignorance, so much as curiosity

While I sort of agree, it's not about a fence but getting as much info as reasonably possible before acting. Next time you change something you don't understand because of curiosity, there may be injuries or deaths.

> This is typical of the dogmatic approach to reasoning that you find in many religious texts

That's pretty much what you've done here; taken the extreme view of what I'm trying to say.

Back on the subject: the dot matrix printer was not the guy's property and it may have been streaming a hardcopy of some server's intrusion log. That would explain why it was there but nobody looked. It's there in case someone ever needed to.

(edit: it's printed door movements, not server stuff. If the doors are opened by badges, it's still movement detection, at least of the most basic, people-y, sort)

That was a very, very stupid thing to do.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/the-parable-of-chestertons-fen...

Another one gone? Oh heck.

The Alpha had the closest thing to beauty in an ISA I've ever seen. Reading about the design motivations of that really made me understand the value of understanding tradeoffs, if that makes sense. It was a work of art.

If I may also mention, I understand Henry S. Warren, author of Hacker's Delight also died recently.

RIP, and I'd wish I'd met both of you.

This yet again pushes the issue onto just the pilots. Anything but the planemaker. I agree with the GP, there's far too much apologism for boeing here.

That was my point (edit: and Nurcahyo Utomo's point). I was backing you up on this.

I was curious about point 3; was lion air responsible for detecting the failed AOA sensor or someone else?

I can't exactly say but a quick read comes up with some relevant points:

"According to the reports presented to the Indonesian parliament, a Florida-based aerospace company performed the repair of the faulty AOA sensor."

https://airlinerwatch.com/broken-aoa-sensor-in-lion-air-737-... [from april 2019]

So possibly it's not LA's fault, however

"On Nov. 5, CNN published an update on the crash investigation from Capt. Nurcahyo Utomo of Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee (KNKT) noting that the FDR review also concluded that the aircraft's airspeed indicator had been malfunctioning on four consecutive flights prior to the crash. Utomo also indicated the pilots should have recognized the malfunction when it occurred on flight JT610."

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/11/07/faa-issues-boeing-7... [from nov 2018]

I'm not an expert here at all but

> An Airworthiness Directive was issued [...] and then throwing the cutoff switches

So the response was "there's a known-lethal fault in our product X, when it happens, do Y"

but not

"there's a known-lethal fault in our product X, withdraw X from use immediately"

Edit: given C programmers have many, many of opportunity to learn "not to do that" in an unsafe language, instead you wrote D. That's silly, why not continue to tell C programmers "don't do <dangerous thing>"? I mean, you could have completely saved yourself year of your time writing a new language which makes it hard to do <dangerous thing>, right? Just tell them not to make mistakes is better, right?

Maybe the western approach of actually giving useful information beats the zen approach of confusing the fuck out of people.

It's unclear what high probabliity, distributed fuckup you're talking about. Climate change? In that case I'm entirely with you but that's a result of the same short-termism I mentioned.

I am horribly certain we've painted ourselves into a corner.

There is 100% failure probability for everything

The best I could interpret it is to have it both ways; break it down into small private functions, then nest (edit: encapsulate) these in a larger one where they can't be seen by anyone else.

> achieved enlightenment

I haven't. What are you saying?

This is exactly why I am against nuclear power, not because it is in any way bad but because it gets treated with not much more sophistication than a chimp would given matches.

Nuclear power is of fabulous value, but the way it gets turned into a potential liability is what puts me off it. It seems to be the way the human race approaches anything; with the shortest term view.

The merit of any tool is in wielding it wisely.

Well, maybe. Probably so, in part, but intel makes large dies rather than AMD's style of multiple smaller dies, which means signals have less far to go (and possibly don't have to be boosted to get between mini-dies).

Perhaps someone who knows about this stuff can comment.

Edit: the mini-dies are chiplets/CCDs. Couldn't remember the name.

https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=tomasulo%27s%20algorithm - start reading some various hits. youtube has some useful animations. H&P book (referenced by sibling comment) is good.

It is to my great regret that I've come to realise many people want to be lied to.

Which makes ethics even more difficult.

Recursive descent is theory. If you put someone new to parsing on the job, you'd get a mess, not RD.

Nice reply, thanks. I fully understand the benefits and we agree then, except possibly for the issue of the cost.

I haven't checked the value of eg. for{} in scala vs a mutable/procedural loop, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an order of magnitude or two different. Figures are needed, and I don't have them (nor the time to benchmark them now, simple though it is).

> the lisp group had a bit of unfriendly rep

And Erik Naggum might have had something to do with it. Perhaps unfairly as he seemed to hate stupidity rather than ignorance, which he was AFAICS, helpful towards.

I alwasy imagined a 60 year old sergeant-major type frothing at the mouth, heck yes he could flame! Dead aged 44. A loss.

"Erik Naggum several times stated that stupidity, or rather the lacking willingness of individuals to acquire knowledge about a subject, argument or read other people's arguments with an open mind, was more or less a criminal offense. He was known for his polemic aggression towards what he considered to be ignorant individuals. Much of what he wrote was so full of sarcasm and irony that it could be difficult to understand what he truly believed in and what were general exaggerations made just to make a point. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum

And as if by magic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21504678 "What It’s Really Like to Fight a War (nytimes.com)"

Perhaps you're right about the stories. People don't want to read real life horror stories. I have actually wondered if VR with realistic reconstructions of war might be of value, to shake them up viscerally, which is really where people think from.

Privacy, well I guess it's up to you in that if others are willing to sell themselves you can't stop them but there's a lot to be gained by blocking ads/JS/cookies in your browser and not having a smart phone. Although as ever there's a cost to doing that, one I'm ok with but others aren't. Good luck with whatever you do.

I think we forget because those stories aren't written down. To collect those stories as a reminder would be perhaps one of the strongest innoculations against blindly accepting the nice new shiny, short of having to repeat those mistakes every couple of generations to learn them anew.

Some ants are get pretty sizeable.

> ... composition of functions operating on immutable data structures is just the right way to go

Yeah. No. Maybe. The cost of immutability can be high. Immutability can be very elegant when it's right, but mutability can be clearer other times. As another respondent said, there's no silver bullet. There's no 'right way to go'; as ever it depends.

What is 'dorky' WRT functional programming?

One reason is the extra instructions are an artefact of the decode process - undefined behaviour that just happens to be useful - but woe to you if you rely on them (although I have heard sometimes they are so useful they get publicly supported, I think something like that happened with the z80 and something to do with addressing/address space).

But here, it's weird, especially something like division which presumably isn't cheap to implement and is useful to end users. I don't get it at all.

Thanks for a comprehensive answer, clearing up some misconceptions etc. Much appreciated.