wols @ wols @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

56

Joined

2 yr. ago

Honestly, their comment reads like copy pasta. That first paragraph is chef's kiss.
I initially thought they weren't being sincere, something something Poe's law...

(' v ')/

That's fair enough, thanks for elaborating!

What do you hate about it?
I'm generally just uninterested in genres I don't enjoy, save for movies that instill and spread hate and intolerance or try to pass off falsehoods as fact.

That number is like 20 years old.

Today it's around 60 billion.

This works as a general guideline, but sometimes you aren't able to write the code in a way that truly self-documents.
If you come back to a function after a month and need half an hour to understand it, you should probably add some comments explaining what was done and why it was done that way (in addition to considering if you should perhaps rewrite it entirely).
If your code is going to be used by third parties, you almost always need more documentation than the raw code.

Yes documentation can become obsolete. So constrain its use to cases where it actually adds clarity and commit to keeping it up to date with the evolving code.

It's a big deal IMO, particularly because at login it doesn't do the same. From the user perspective, your password has effectively been modified without your knowledge and no reasonable way of finding out. Good luck getting access to your account.
When a bank does this it should be considered gross negligence.

If their password was actually good (18+ random characters) it's not feasible with current day technology to brute force, no matter how few PBKDF2 iterations were used.

Obviously it's still a big issue because in many cases people don't use strong enough passwords (and apparently LastPass stored some of the information in plaintext) but a strong password is still good protection provided the encryption algorithm doesn't have any known exploitable weaknesses.

El psy kongroo

There's no need for something that complex.
Someone with access to a chess engine watches the game and inputs the moves into the engine as they're played. If there's a critical move (only 1 or very few of the options are winning/don't throw the game) they send a simple signal to let him know. That can be enough to give you an advantage at that level. If you really want, you could send a number between 1 and 6 to represent which piece the engine prefers to move, but it's likely not necessary.

That said, all the evidence he actually did anything like that is at best circumstantial (mostly statistical evidence supposedly showing how unlikely his performance was given his past performance and rating at the time, as well as known instances of past cheating by him - though the only confirmed ones were several years ago when he was still a kid and online rather than in person).

Extra steps that guarantee you don't accidentally treat an integer as if it were a string or an array and get a runtime exception.
With generics, the compiler can prove that the thing you're passing to that function is actually something the function can use.

Really what you're doing if you're honest, is doing the compiler's work: hmm inside this function I access this field on this parameter. Can I pass an argument of such and such type here? Lemme check if it has that field. Forgot to check? Or were mistaken? Runtime error! If you're lucky, you caught it before production.

Not to mention that types communicate intent. It's no fun trying to figure out how to use a library that has bad/missing documentation. But it's a hell of a lot easier if you don't need to guess what type of arguments its functions can handle.

Y

"They have all the guns" is a metaphor in the context of class warfare.

I mean that they have the means to employ force (usually through police, but not exclusively) in their interest as well as having the entire power of the state behind them (disproportionate wealth means they have disproportionate political influence which means they can lobby for laws to be adjusted in their favor. Even when the law seems just, it is rarely applied in the same way to wealthy people in practice).

Not to mention that they can and do buy influence over the media apparatus, controlling narratives and tricking the working class into acting against their own interests.

Within the framework of class conflict, those are the "guns".

It's almost like their class interests changed and class interests influence behavior.

Almost like it's proving their point. Capitalist critique is not about individual "bad" people but about a system with perverse and harmful incentives.

(granting your claim for sake of argument - feel free to support it with data)

That's true. However.

The owning class has interests directly opposed to the working class, which makes that "natural" trait toxic to the working class. In addition, the owning class has a lot more power.

Your landlord wants to make as much money as possible for as long as possible. (fair enough right?) The problem is that for that to happen

• demand needs to stay high or go higher which means that
• supply needs to stay low which means that (at the level of class interests, not personal belief)
  Your landlord doesn't want new affordable housing to be built in your area. They want you to never own a house, never have any cheaper rent options. They don't want to have to keep renting to you at the price you are paying now.
  They don't want to have to invest money in making your apartment/house safe or comfortable.

The problem is not that people will put their own wellbeing above yours, it's that their wellbeing is in conflict with yours. A conflict of interests between classes... class conflict... class warfare. And they have all the guns.
It doesn't have to be this way.

The point is that you're not fixing the problem, you're just masking it (and one could even argue enabling it).

The same way adding another 4 lane highway doesn't fix traffic long term (increasing highway throughput leads to more people leads to more cars leads to congestion all over again) simply adding more RAM is only a temporary solution.

Developers use the excuse of people having access to more RAM as justification to produce more and more bloated software. In 5 years you'll likely struggle even with 32GiB, because everything uses more.
That's not sustainable, and it's not necessary.

I think they meant the only language we transpile to for the express reason that working with it directly is so unpleasant.

Java is not transpiled to another language intended for human use, it's compiled to JVM bytecode.

People don't usually develop software directly in the IR of LLVM. They do develop software using vanilla JavaScript.

I can't for the life of me figure out how your proposed method helps in the described scenario.

Maybe I misunderstood it, can you elaborate?

If you kept going for a few paragraphs, this might have turned into a decent copy pasta. Shame, really.

Yup.

Spaces? Tabs? Don't care, works regardless.
Copied some code from somewhere else? No problem, 9/10 times it just works. Bonus: a smart IDE will let you quick-format the entire code to whatever style you configured at the click of a button even if it was a complete mess to begin with, as long as all the curly braces are correct.

Also, in any decent IDE you will very rarely need to actually count curly braces, it finds the pair for you, and even lets you easily navigate between them.

The inconsistent way that whitespace is handled across applications makes interacting with code outside your own code files incredibly finicky when your language cares so much about the layout.

There's an argument to be made for the simplicity of python-style indentation and for its aesthetic merits, but IMO that's outweighed by the practical inconvenience it brings.

As always, the dose makes the poison.
A common scenario is people picking the wrong species and then not just eating a small bite, but cooking an entire meal and eating that.

A small bite may not kill you, but just one mushroom (50g) can be enough to do it.

There are some toxic mfs out there and they can be mistaken for edible lookalikes by inexperienced foragers.