Oh yeah, "nine blue fish" would make a lot more sense there.
5,317 karma · joined October 27, 2011
I don't get this. What does the proportion of blue fish have to do with the total number of fish you catch?
Is there some stats knowledge I'm missing?
Marty: Organised crime?
Cosmo: Trust me, it ain't that organised!When was the last security update for MS Office 2010? Wikipedia reckons sometime in late 2020. It might be worth looking at alternatives if you ever open potentially untrusted documents - maybe ones that appear to have been sent by people you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office#Support_polic...
> “What the Department of Government Efficiency is trying to do is what GitLab does,” Robins said.
...well, fuck
The underlying goal of horseshoe theory is not to create a meaningful comparison between two positions, but an underhanded attempt to demoralise those on the left, and to swing undecided centrists by convincing them that the left isn't really offering the progress that it claims. I think it's also used as a shield by people who are right-leaning but don't want to admit it out loud.
...unless you can find a single good example of a notable left-wing proponent suggesting that horseshoe theory is valid, actually.
Naturally, that brings to mind the classic:
> Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?
-- Brian Kernighan, The Elements of Programming Style
And also:
> Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.
-- Abelson & Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
Programmers who rely on them will stop learning machine code, and won't know how their program really works. That's if the compiler actually compiles your code at all, without throwing an internal error, making you change your (correct) code around arbitrarily until it actually accepts it. But at least with an internal compiler error you know the compiler has broken - rather than it silently miscompiling your code to do the wrong thing.
But even then, even if the compiler accepts your code without barfing, and generates correct machine code from it, it still won't generate as efficient machine code as you could write by hand yourself.
Nope, these compilers will never catch on, and never get reliable enough to be useful for serious software engineering.
-- Some programmer circa 1975, probably, who lives in my head mumbling this to themselves whenever I'm sure generative-AI-based "programming" is a crock of shit. Although, to be fair, the 2005-era developer who is drunkenly ranting that UML diagrams will make programming 100x more productive any day now, is a handy counterpoint.
Need's got nothing to do with it. Bullies don't take what you have because they need it, they take it because that's what you have, and they want to take it away from you, just to be taking it away from you.
For Trump, it is not enough that (as he perceives the situation) he wins, rather than (as he perceives) everyone else loses. Even people's whose backs are up against the wall. Especially people whose backs are up against the wall. If you don't exploit the weakest player at the table, why are you even playing?
(Not that Trump knows anything about gambling... who the fuck loses money running a casino... on multiple separate occasions...)
Trump isn't making deals based on carefully considered advantages and concessions. He's just grasping his tiny hands at whatever comes in reach, whether or not he needs it, like the half-wit schoolyard thug he is.
If I think of a competition, then I'd expect the rules to be determined ahead of time according to some pre-imagined criteria. If someone manages to find a clever hack within the rules that allows for trivial "breaks", then that's good for them and they just get to beat everyone else at it.
But if I think of a game, then it's much more natural for the rules to adapt over time as people realise that some types of "play" make the game less fun, or straight-up boring. They don't have to be self-consistent, or logical. They're essentially arbitrary, and just whatever they need to be to make the game "better".
¹ Linus Torvalds, Just for Fun, pp.63
> The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Certainly, in the past "a tarball of the source for whatever version you have" was absolutely considered sufficient for that. But these days the features provided by source control systems, such as "annotate"(/"blame"), "bisect", etc... could very well be argued to have raised the baseline for what "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" should mean.
> Starts in 5 seconds, uses ~600MB of RAM (less than VSCode!), and works very snappy.
> The trick is, it didn't get bloated or heavier over the years, the contrary,
...and you're mentioning these features as points in Eclipse's favour ... when comparing it to vim?!?!?
I think you forgot the "/s"
Imagine if you don't learn anything new in the next 25 years, and all your opinions stay completely stagnant. What a waste of 25 years that will be.
Given that they didn't mention which Linux security model the new system was like, I presumed they meant the most commonly referenced model for performing administrative tasks: sudo/doas - which elevates a process for its entire runtime.
But if it's a per-operation model, I guess they might have been comparing it to the "desktop portal"/"policykit-dbus" model instead? Which does kind of fit, but I don't think is the security model that most people think of when someone says "linux-like just-in-time escalation"?
Is that what's happened here? It looks to me more like the billionaire/PE class's drive to capture rents through monopolies is a more accurate lens to view the situation through. Especially as it's the trope namer for chickenization
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chickenization
https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/17/revenge-of-the-chickenize...
That's probably the easiest step to take next, before looking at virtualization or a full Linux install with Wine.
Not quite. Web assembly isn't a source language, it's a compiler target. So you should be able to write in C, Rust, Fortran, or Lua and compile any of those to WebAssembly.
Except that WebAssembly is a cross-platform assembly language/machine code which is very similar to the native machine code of many/most contemporary CPUs. This means a WebAssembly interpreter can be very straightforward, and could often translate one WebAssembly instruction to one native CPU instruction. Or rather, it can compile a stream of WebAssembly instructions almost one-to-one to native CPU instructions, which it can then execute directly.
Right, but does anyone think that that's what people with NDEs are doing?
I don't get what the poster was trying to say. It's like they're trying to debunk something that doesn't exist to need debunking? And the article isn't even about NDEs, like, at all.
I'm just really confused what the point of the comment was?