contras1970

> It has been observed, again, that the abundance of Globigerinae, in proportion to other organisms, of like kind, increases with the depth of the sea; and that deep-water Globigerinae are larger than those which live in shallower parts of the sea; and such facts negative the supposition that these organisms have been swept by currents from the shallows into the deeps of the Atlantic.

> It therefore seems to be hardly doubtful that these wonderful creatures live and die at the depths in which they are found.

> However, the important points for us are, that the living Globigerinae are exclusively marine animals, the skeletons of which abound at the bottom of deep seas; and that there is not a shadow of reason for believing that the habits of the Globigerinae of the chalk differed from those of the existing species. But if this be true, there is no escaping the conclusion that the chalk itself is the dried mud of an ancient deep sea.

    USER        PID %CPU %MEM    VSZ    RSS TT  STAT   STARTED      TIME COMMAND
    fubar      2922  0.0  0.1  61648  26668  2  S0+    19Mar18  22:58.73 weechat

it may not be complicated but you cannot beat doing nothing.

    I wonder if we'll smile in our coffins
    while loved ones mourn the day,
    the absence of our faces,
    living, laughing, eyes awake.
    Is this too much for them to take?

    Too young for one's conclusion, the lifestyle won.
    Such values you taught your son.
    That's how.

    Look at me now.
    I'm broken.
    Inherit my life.

    One day we all will die, a cliched fact of life.
    Force fed to make us heed.
    Inbred to sponge our bleed.
    Every warning, a leaking rubber,
    a poison apple for mingled blood.

    Too young for one's delusion the lifestyle cost
    Venereal Mother embrace the loss.
    That's how

    Look at you now.
    You're broken
    Inherit your life.

edit: oh, and i lower my hat to you for coming here and taking the heat. appreciated, having a real person to vent at is so special in the case of google...

[1] web application pushers

edit: hn "syntax"

i'm not really sure what your point is. are you arguing that societal changes should be prohibited? well then: is the recent change towards equalization of gay people's rights ok? why? because you like it?

so, let's say we base our reasoning about our present-day society on the culture of 17xx AD England, because change is bad. well, we will have to roll back women's vote to right, not to mention all the modern nonsense that "negroes" are allowed today. but why stop at 17xx AD England: that society was the result of many changes from 10xx AD England. lots of change, and we've established that change is bad. but don't stop there: even 10xx AD England was a product of changes, and changes are bad...

btw, the answer to that non-sequitur of yours is "no i wouldn't." but i have to accept the bad with the good. democracy helped Hitler to the Chancellor title. i don't think we should get rid of democracy to prevent another Hitler.

I don't think we're talking about patents granted by the crown in 17th-18th century, so if you wanted to make this analogy it'd have to go like this:

Imagine you're gay, and you want to get married. Should basic rules of marriage be up for debate when, thousands years ago, society agreed that gay people should be killed instead?

american exceptionalism at its finest. :)

const bind1st = (f, x) => (y) => f(x, y) const addTwo = bind1st(add, 2) let x = addTwo(5) // 7

it can get a little confusing unless one's used to point-free programming:

const twostep = bind1st(bind1st, bind1st) // YMMV

    <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
    xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
    xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
    xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
    xmlns:mv="http://macVmlSchemaUri" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

    <head>
    <meta name=Title content=cv.html>
    <meta name=Keywords content="">
    <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
    <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
    <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14">
    <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 14">
    <link rel=File-List href="cv_files/filelist.xml">
    <link rel=Edit-Time-Data href="cv_files/editdata.mso">
    <!--[if !mso]>
    ...

> Why pre-inc/decrement?

as opposed to what? nothing? clearly, the code needs to advance the iterators before dereferencing.

> Why the +1 on the for?

because it's interested in the option name as opposed to the leading dash: argv[0][0] is '-' (see the while above), the switch is looking at argv[0][1].

> Did he actually get the precedence of the operators correct?

not sure what this is about, the only involved expression has explicit parentheses (out of necessity).

> Okay, it looks like argc and argv will be mangled if you actually want to do anything else with them.

yes... and? mutating a local int and a local pointer is bad? how would you go about this without mutating an iterator?

> I see comparing to '\0' with no count limit--is there a buffer overrun lurking here?

nope, it's an array of null-terminated strings.

> Does that error handling actually work--that loop can't exit with that condition unless the second clause does something.

i do not understand what you're pointing at here.

> I'd assign argc and argv to something else so if I need them later for something they are in their original state.

consider they're already local names, and YAGNI. do alias them if you need them later, not because you might one day.

> I'd give myself a variable that points to each individual argv on each iteration, and I'd call it something.

you would give yourself a possible bug and an obligation to keep the two things in sync.

> I'd make the error handling more explicit so if I had to add another case later I wouldn't have to rack my brain about whether the error gets handled.

what is more explicit than

    printf("Illegal option %c\n", *s);

i'd really love to see your preferred version of the snippet from TFA. i posit it'd be two to three times as long, and its total complexity would be similarly increased.

and what about carpenters? they won't do squat if we don't grant them perpetual payments for the houses they once built.

same with tailors. they're entitled to fees every time we wear our clothes...

i mean, the incentive argument is so transparently bogus my mind boggles.

i bet the question was: "what has HTML5 done for us?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ