All toasters are equal, but some toasters are more equal than others:
445 karma · joined July 27, 2013
I presume you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_(cocktail) ?
Terminator:
"nothing clean right" - no results
"fuck you, asshole" - one result for Terminator, but the phrase occurs twice in the film.
Predator:
"If it bleeds, we can kill it" - Predator came up, and a few others (interesting).
Total Recall:
"Sue me, dickhead" - it got that one.
Commando:
"You're a funny guy Sully, I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last." - no results.
EDIT: reformatted.
HN_FAQ > If a story has had significant attention in the last year or so, we kill reposts as duplicates. If not, a small number of reposts is ok.
Being a repost is not sufficient justification, as stated above.
EDIT: Cool Dang, I get ya.
""" <div><span class="highlight">M</span></div>
<div><span class="highlight">M</span></div>
<div><spam class="highlight">M</spam></div>
<div><span class="highlight">M</span></div>
proportional fonts can make it easier to spot typos """
The example given demonstrates that a certain subset of typos can be caught using proportional fonts, but not all.
If a word has too many or too few characters in it, I think you are more likely to spot it utilising a monospaced font.
EDIT: the quote has been made more legible.
It has been posted before [0], but I don't consider that to be sufficient justification.
Perhaps it has been flagged because it is appropriate for hackers, the flaggers have not furnished us with any reasoning so it is anyone's guess.
That essence is something you and I have in common. I believe this thread sprouted because of how my original comment was interpreted. I think you are the first HN reader to actually give a decent word for word analysis of my comments. A lot of the time I just have to endure obvious misinterpretations, elaborations, misquotes or sometimes just plain fabrications. It's good to come across someone who takes time to read boring old English.
If you were to 'speak' Perl verbatim, you probably would start frothing at the mouth (from exertion, not from a deadly disease).
No, you're just confused. You mentioned the two statements in that link, but you have only described one. The other statement you referred to is from my original comment.
I do not understand, and there are four statements, not two.
> Right. And I'm saying that, in my experience teaching, it's better to teach CS and then let programming be something that kind of just falls out of that naturally, as opposed to focusing on programming itself.
Where did I say that the focus should purely be on programming?
I can assure you there is none , the misunderstanding is with my original comment: 'writing an algorithm'.
> You may know non-computer algorithms as "routines" or "procedures".
Like the algorithm "make a nice, hot cup of coffee", which is executed billions of times each day by biological computers known as humans.
EDIT: wrt my naff spelling.
Was that my core argument? My original comment (as pointed out by the omnipresent DanBC) was poorly phrased, and was rephrased as:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8126115
> If you can teach the student to think precisely and unambiguously about a single algorithm, the unrelenting logic of the machine is no stumbling block; quite the opposite, actually.
Of course it isn't a stumbling block, logical thinking is required for both, which would also explain why they are both difficult.
That depends on the language, I doubt you could learn much about programming in a few weeks, it requires lots of practise.
> If I had to choose between teaching why an avl balanced binary search tree works and forcing students to implement in a chosen programming language from pseudocode, I would choose the former every time. The intellectual maturity is far more valuable -- and harder to acquire -- than the rote skill.
You are giving yourself a hard choice, just demonstrate both sides.
From personal experience, I've been looking at bst's recently. While messing around in my code, out of the blue I decided to write the struct for the node like this:
typedef struct avl_node_typed {
avl_node_typed *left, *right;
void *data;
unsigned height, population; /* avl algorithm requires height, not number of nodes */
}avl_node;
avl_node *search_index(avl_node *node, int index) {
int x=0;
if(node->left)
x=node->left->population;
if(index>x)
return search_index(node->right, index-x-1);
else if(index<x)
return search_index(node->left, index);
else
return node;
}
> Learning the problem solving skills to create new algorithms is not so trivial, and often can't be self-taught.
Getting someone to put themselves 'in the shoes of a computer', is just as difficult.
Yes, an avl balanced binary search tree can run faster on an artificial computer than on a natural one.
Apologies for being vague, I presumed the phrase 'writing an algorithm' was sufficiently precise.
> It's easy to find people who could create an algorithm but who cannot also code.
I rephrase that: It's easy to find people who could create an algorithm but can only target a specific architecture, human grey matter.
Of course I did (sometimes reluctantly). Before I learned programming, I couldn't 'write' an algorithm in a file and get a computer to follow those directions instead.
> I learned addition, multiplication and division algorithms before I even got a computer.
I know, subtraction is so damn hard to get right isn't it.
Explaining algorithms to someone in clear and simple English will enable them to understand those algorithms, but a computer does not understand English. To 'write' an algorithm for a computer to perform, you need to code.
If you cannot code, you cannot check that your ideas work out on a computer.
> Which is to say, from my observation, coding-as-problem-solving is not very effective until after you've thought things through in more general, mathematical terms.
I don't see how that relates to my comment, I specifically referred to 'writing' an algorithm, as in implementing the algorithm in code, not devising the algorithm in the first place.
#define DECK 11
double z() {
const double s=2.0, c=0.1;
double arr[DECK], low=1.0, up=s, inc=c;
int j, k;
for(j=0; j<15; ++j) {
for(k=0; k<DECK; ++k) {
*(arr+k)=low+(double)k*inc;
}
for(k=1; k<DECK; ++k) {
if( *(arr+k-1)*(*(arr+k-1)) <s && *(arr+k)*(*(arr+k)) >s ) {
low=*(arr+k-1);
up=*(arr+k);
break;
}
}
inc*=c;
}
if( s-low*low < up*up-s )
return low;
else
return up;
}
"Learning how to code in any one particular [computer] language is not going to be worthwhile beyond 10 or 20 years," he said. "Learning how to problem-solve using algorithms and how technology works and how it's built is going to last a century at least."
I fail to see how you could write an algorithm if you don't know how to code.
It mentions sorcerers, other versions of the bible mention practitioners of magic. So basically most people who read HN are condemned to the Lake of Fire.
In 6 half-hour films Campbell pulled what had been happening all together - and drew a frightening picture that still haunts the imagination of the liberal left.
Some Americans were already paranoid back in the mid 70's - Francis Ford Coppola's "The Conversation", with that well known and often mis-parsed phrase - "He'd kill us if he got the chance".
Not only is the concentration different, but also the composition. I haven't heard of plutonium occurring in nature.
Coincidentally, I had a stack overflow while working on some trees a few months ago, it ate all my ram within about 2 seconds. Although my stack was sizeable, my program was blind and unaware of the stack limit.
There is an assumption that all these anonymous posts are from men, but there is the possibility that some are from women.
I've read a few articles like this, but I cannot remember one which looks at sexism from a world wide web oriented viewpoint.