danra

I've always advocated for smaller atomic refactors.

...oh. Never mind.

When it's down to brass tacks, the most common GitHub action, actions/checkout, is not taking contributions due to "focus [...] on strategic areas" [0] despite having years-old issues - here's one[1] that soon celebrates its sixth birthday, despite having an available PR!

[0] https://github.com/actions/checkout#note

[1] https://github.com/actions/checkout/issues/270#issue-6289677...

Geez. This would've been much more agreeable had they bothered to fix years-old open bugs with self-hosted runners

...and, IIRC, desparately grasping for generated ammo to pick up while making said retreat.

Good to know.

Of course, I did have to google how to quit easy vim.

Sound Radix | Senior C++ Algorithm Developer | 80%- to Full-Time | Onsite/Hybrid/Remote, Tel Aviv, Israel

We are looking for a top C++ algorithm developer to join us in creating cutting-edge tools for audio professionals.

What we offer:

- Research and develop groundbreaking, world-class audio algorithms and software

- Join and make an impact in a small, expert team of developers

- Meaningful work: help the top artists, music producers and sound professionals in the world create music and audio. Our customers comprise the teams behind Coldplay, Rihanna, Ted Lasso, Dune, and many more

- Accommodation for a 4 days work week

- Flexible onsite/remote hours (fully remote is possible, onsite/hybrid preferred)

- Competitive compensation

Requirements:

- At least 8 years experience programming

- At least 5 years experience programming in C++ or other low-level language

- At least 3 years experience in R&D of algorithms (DSP is an advantage)

- Experience with JUCE is an advantage

- Experience with NumPy/PyTorch is an advantage

Soft requirements:

- Curiosity and creativity

- DRY and maintainable programming style

- High capacity for self-management and working independently

- Commitment to providing a great user experience to professionals - Passion for music and/or audio

Please send your application to jobs@soundradix.com

Not true. For example we could be surrounded by a sphere of uniform infinite density, in which case our atoms wouldn't be pulled in either direction.

https://github.com/Peaker/git-mediate is an amazing secret weapon for making quick work of 3-way conflict resolution.

That's taking it to extreme, though. It's possible that a large number of medium companies, for instance, would have the same open source yield as the megacorps who just bought them out (in our reality). Especially if it were easier for them to attract more talented engineers, which would be the case if the big companies had less of a grip on the existing market (e.g. if Meta were forced to split up, as regulators push for)

By "techwashing" I mean using some of the money a company makes in its main business (which in the case of Meta and some other corporates has a bad impact on society) to make a positive technical contribution to the public , thus helping existing and prospective employees work there with less of a guilty conscience.

Similar, to e.g. a pharmaceutical company raising the price of a medicine excessively, but then donating some of the money to build a hospital.

It's just that in the case of tech companies, the reputation washing is done via technical contributions.

Of course, but you don't know either. So your argument that these (or equivalent) contributions wouldn't exist without the megacorps doesn't hold.

> corporate funding of all the open-source projects that wouldn't exist without the megacorps

This is a fallacy: It's possible comparable open source contributions could have been made without the graces of the corporates.

For example: The giants tend to buy out their competition early, so how could it mature enough to be able to contribute comparably, or possibly better, to open source?

IMHO the open source contributions of these companies are a form of tech-washing, regardless of the honest and best intentions of their employees.

Not a large company, but we did choose Svelte and are actively seeking hiring someone experienced with it.

This one worked for me: https://dnshistory.org/

How about extending this feature to automatically add in the required licenses for the sources of Copilot-generated code?

I'm shaking, I'm shaking

Thank you on behalf of my RSI.

> Currently observing issues affecting GitHub.com ?.

Yes.

Not sure why you were downvoted.

Protonmail stores all your emails encrypted, with the encryption dependent on your password, so something like this couldn't happen there.

I hope I'm not the only one who read the title as adding some helpful text to the exception for n00bs, which explains about the very concept of null.

Can’t wait to try it out on my desktop.

On my mobile (iPhone), I get clicks and other artifacts on playback, which increase when scrolling the view, which I guess indicates samples not being generated fast enough.

What is the significance of this decision? This is already explicitly stated as disallowed in GDPR. Is this just an declaration of intention to enforce the existing law?

At my company’s site[1] we have a non-intrusive banner at the bottom which lets you agree or disagree to tracking cookies, or just ignore it and browse the site.

You don’t get served any tracking cookies until you agree.

This fulfills the explicit consent requirement of GDPR as well as the requirement for people to be able to use your site even if they don’t accept cookies.

We get much less analytics then we used to - many people just ignore the cookies bar, either knowingly or just because they don’t notice it. But it’s totally worth it.

I hope the EU starts fining non-compliant (i.e. 99% of) sites aggressively, specifically those that pretend to care about your privacy, but don’t really (“Agree” button only).

[1] https://www.soundradix.com/

I really like how this allows you to learn more about how the compiler understands your code. It could be really neat if it were added as an assistant editor in Xcode.

I thought the :0 would hint at the tongue in cheek. The replies and downvotes say otherwise.

E-voting over blockchain to the rescue! :0

> C++ apparently wants to separate 1 from 2 and 3, to move more high-level and get more "language magic" (templates, iteration stuff... ) without making the language any safer in any respect.

How so? Take std::unique_ptr for example, which exists since C++11. It facilitates using the language in a safer manner, and at a higher level of abstraction (you no longer have to manually malloc and free/new and delete - you just have the concept of scoped ownership), while at the same time not adding any “behind the scenes” magic (e.g. garbage collection) so as not to leave room for any high-level language to be more performant than it is - that’s the real motto of C++, to my understanding.

You're probably looking for this thread instead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19281834

Every once in a while I search for something I need in Python and find that it only exists in Python 3, but I'm not quite convinced it's worth the effort to transition from 2.

However... I've just learned about Python 3's f-strings and they gave me a big smile, and probably the final push I needed :)

(Yes, I do know that sounds silly and there are probably much better reasons to transition to Python 3 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

I’m far from the top expert on the history of C++, but here’s my understanding:

C++ aims to be the high level language which leaves no room for another high level language to be even more optimized below it - “pay for what you use”.

Having its roots in C, while having high level abstractions, C++ also has a lot of low level functionality which is hard to use correctly and safely unless you have a lot of experience (e.g. raw pointers). This low level functionality is sometimes needed, but definitely not always, and the recent iterations of the language over the last decade try to both add new abstractions which make the language easier to use, and deprecate the most tricky parts which are not really needed anymore and which have better, modern alternatives (this being limited by the need to maintain sane backwards compatibility) - all the while maintaining C++’s design goal described above.

An example of an addition is unique_ptr and shared_ptr added in C++11 and which make managing ownership and correct lifetime of allocated objects much easier.

An example of a deprecation is eliminating gotcha uses of the ‘volatile’ keyword, and thus simplify the language. (I believe this one is still undergoing approval.)

There is a big difference between modern and “classic” C++, but it’s mostly a good difference - C++ is much easier to start using and to teach than it was 15 years. It still has a way to go, and the standardization committee makes a lot of effort in that direction.

As for keeping up - it’s definitely a lot of work. Learning C++ isn’t something you start and finish - it’s more like culture. You spend some part of your life studying and enjoying it, and there’s always something new.

We can hope for a future in which learning C++ is something you just start and finish, but we’re not there yet (if ever). I’m not sure if that’s a good or a bad thing :)