dreta

The only people who keep fuelling racial tensions are Democrats, notably Obama and Clinton, constantly telling black people they’re oppressed and that the police is racist. Trump had to cancel a rally in Chicago after democrats started rioting, he’s not the one instigating the violence, but whenever it breaks out, it’s always described as a “fight breaking out”, and never as democrats assaulting Trump supporters, which is what it is.

Trump doesn’t bring race to anything. He’s just called “racist” by people who don’t understand the term “illegal alien”, or that Islam is not a race.

Trump said these terrible things a decade ago. A decade ago Clinton and Obama were strongly, and publicly, against gay marriage. A decade ago Clinton praised sen. Robert Byrd as her “mentor”, a former KKK member, and noted racist. Go back further, and you have tapes of her laughing at the victims of her husband and destroying their lives. The thing with Hillary though, is that you don’t have to go that far with her, if you stop ignoring the fact she should be in jail right now, and not running for office.

Been following Casey since the 2nd season of The Jeff And Casey Show. His problem solving methodologies, and programming philosophy have been a huge inspiration to me ever since, and have actually helped me craft better software in my proffessional line of work.

No, you move a group of people, who don't share western values into the middle of the western civilization and this is what you get. Syria is not the only war-torn country on Earth.

No, he just can’t understand why somebody would tolerate an idea they disagree with.

There’s a major problem with Muslim refugees in Europe right now. My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime. What he’s saying is based on reality, even if it makes you feel all bad inside when you hear it. Even in the US, where the refugee problem doesn’t exist, you still learn after terrorist attacks that, f.e. the family knew, or that the attacker had bomb equipment all over the apartment, but nobody said anything.

These are national security issues, and they need to be addressed by the president, i’m glad he’s doing it, same for illegal immigration, even if he’s doing it in a cringe-worthy, populist way. He’s not a life-long politician.

Anytime a tragedy happens right now, first thing you hear is Obama and Clinton taking about guns being the problem, and wanting to disarm you, or that all Muslims are amazing people. You never hear the problem being addressed. It is rather scary to see your president, and potential future president do that.

All you’re doing is trying to shame Altman and Y Combinator supporters into disowing Thiel. The great thing about what Altman is doing is that he doesn’t feel so morally superior to others that he’ll either see people share his views, or have them removed. You should learn to criticise ideas, not people.

Funny to see this on a site that publicly crucified a guy falsely accused of rape, and pushed the “1 in 5 women get raped on campus” myth.

Attack articles like this are always disgusting. Unfortunately starting a moral outrage on social media, trying to get somebody fired, and guilt-tripping are becoming common tactics these days for authoritarians, who convinced themselves they're moraly superior to others. Happy to see Y Combinator resisted where most yield.

There's no such thing as the "gun show loophole". It's a myth. There already are background checks. I can tell you've never even tried to own a gun.

We can argue whether Trump is an authoritarian or not, but what we can't argue about is that Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms. Democrats can call it "common sense" whatever, but that's what it is.

Why is this news when the fact Clinton received donations from major corporations, banks, and foreign governments isn't. It's like the media wants to paint a target on anybody openly supporting Trump.

Best of luck making this work across browsers. And even more luck to anybody who uses this, and then has to come back 6 months later to change something.

There’s a reason why people make tons of money playing the stock market against companies that artificially force gender, or racial equality.

Practices like these are going to ruin your business the same way being sexist, or racist will. Either you hire the best person for the job, or you’ll be beaten by companies that do.

I don't understand why you guys hang on the fact C64 wasn't coded in C. I never said it was. I talk about C-like languages, so low-level, with little to no overhead.

I understand that computers worked differently back then, and that software usually had full control over the machine, but please, don't talk to me about buffering, etc. when we're talking 6502 versus an i7, or an A8. I understand that input and output aren’t instant these days, but that’s an order of tens to hundreds milliseconds of delay. It doesn’t explain why Visual Studio takes tens of seconds to compile “Hello, World!” on a 16 core processor. Or why your Chrome tab eats 600MB of RAM.

Since you want to talk about buffering and built-in input delay, here’s a comparison of text editor performance:

https://pavelfatin.com/typing-with-pleasure/#windows

If i’m missing something obvious, please explain to me how using any of the C++ concepts made the code any better.

You have to keep in mind that this is a very simple piece of software. I wager you that using things like templates made the code unnecessarily harder to understand. I’ll also wager that by using templates he made the code harder to scale, since any remotely complex template, just like an overused base class, eventually becomes a set of special cases, or a set of specialised templates which defeats their purpose in the first place, and makes your code a nightmare to step through.

This is a typical example presented in a talk. It doesn’t reflect any large real-world software, where complex language solutions (useful ones, not the ones in C++) could actually benefit the programmer.

Could’ve easily written that in plain C. All the usage of C++ concepts like templates did, was made him write more code than necessary, and made the code harder to understand.

Oh, you’re the author! No, i don’t expect, or want, any change from a site that ends every post about Trump with:

"Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”

I don’t care about you offending people on the right, and they don’t seem to be taking offence in the first place.

Vote trading by itself, i don’t think is an issue, as long as individual states deem it legal.

My comment is in the context of the article, and the way it was written. A frightening number of people on the left seem to be willing to go to any lengths, just to enforce their ideology on others, and they’ll excuse it by convincing themselves they’re superior, and thus right.

It’s frightening how many people on the left feel so morally superior to others, they’ll excuse any authoritarian practice that complies with their political views, or goals.

There’s a lot of problems with C, like the fact you have to break out of case statements, or string concatenation, or overuse of the static keyword. These are actual problems, which C++ doesn’t even begin to try and solve, instead introducing useless features and bloat. C is still one of the few popular languages that allows you to talk to the machine directly. It’s a language that doesn’t rely on hidden run-time logic, or hidden implementation costs. It doesn’t enforce any particular programming style on you, and lets you do anything a process is capable of doing.

Software engineers these days are so lost in abstractions and design patterns that they forget that at the end of the day a program is just data, and a set of operations that transform that data. There’s huge value in writing code that does everything explicitly from top to bottom, both from a readability, and from a debugability standpoint. Instead, these days, software is designed using UML diagrams and OOP concepts while pretending that objects are ideas that float in some abstract disconnected space. All in the name of concepts envisioned by people who write books instead of programming, and who never saw even a glimpse of a problem you’re trying to solve.

Languages like C will never become obsolete. There’s always a new frontier of hardware that needs fast, tailored software. Few years ago that was phones, and watches, next it might be tiny implants. Anybody who thinks languages like C is obsolete should ask themselves “why was my Comodore64 more responsive than a PC i bought in 2016?”, or "why is my dual-core Android smartphone with 1GB of RAM barely usable after a year”. Modern languages and programming practices have this amazing ability to completely negate the massive progress hardware has made.

The problem with “don’t re-invent the wheel” approach to software development is that, IMHO, software engineers are yet to invent the wheel in the first place.

Same for food, healthcare, or shelter. With education there's more than enough incentive for private enterprise to provide it to invest in future workers.

People like you made US what it is today, and instead of elevating success stories like yours people would rather complain that life is unfair, and that others have it better. Parents or grandparents of people who are the middle class today went through what you did, only a few decades ago.

Education is a service. People want to become doctors and engineers, because that pays well. It’s profitable to become educated, thus it’s profitable to provide education. Parents will want to provide education for their children, just like they provide them with food, shelter, healthcare, or save money for them. Education, really is no different. I have no idea where this notion comes from that making education private means it stops exiting. Making education private provides competition in the market, and more choice for people seeking it.

What’s the correlation between crime fighting and education levels? What you seem to be suggesting is that people need to go through some sort of a brain-washing process in public schooling to be good members of society, which is scary.

How do you think “income equality” is a good idea in a society where some people work harder than others. I can’t comprehend this common mentality.

Railways is a completely arbitrary example. If they would be impossible (which i sincerely doubt) without government involvement, the free market would find alternatives. That’s the beauty of it. It’s how progress happens.

Education is not an externality, and should be handled by the free market, not the government. Public education is in a horrible state everywhere you go, precisely because it’s public.

There will always be people who are poorer than others, but there’s nothing prohibiting poor people from working their way up the ladder beside government regulations.

Poor people are hurt most by government programs like welfare, and laws like minimum wage. Private enterprise allows people to make a living for themselves by providing services to people who need them. By working harder than others they can break out of poverty, instead of relying on the government to keep everybody down for the sake of "equality”. This used to be a norm.

"When governments directly provide a service, they often provide living wages and decent benefits to workers. When private companies take control, they often slash wages and benefits in an attempt to cut labor costs, replacing stable, middle class jobs with poverty-level jobs.”

This is so incredibly disingenuous. All this is saying is that it’s beneficial to the society that the government creates artificial jobs that can’t sustain themselves and gives immunity from market fluctuation to people who perform these jobs at the cost of regular taxpayers who aren’t immune, and have to train themselves in new fields, and change jobs. The government can’t just provide these benefits without negatively affecting the rest of the society.

Monopoly is granted by governments creating laws that prohibit smaller companies from competing on the free market.

Quality of goods and services suffer when there’s government protection placed on companies.

These are problems the government creates, not private enterprise.

The speaker just introduces more OOP complexity into already complex OOP code. All that’s going to do is make the code even harder to modify or step through.

Right now i do iOS development mostly in pure C, outside of the unavoidable Objective-C. So i do have the right experience.

The issue with OOP is that as soon as you introduce inheritance, and things like virtual functions, you’re introducing variable program behaviour based on context. And most of the time you end up having to special-case things up in the hierarchy because nothing ever goes as you envisioned it.

Structuring your code so that you have simple data and code that operates on the data means that what’s happening in the code at a particular time is always explicit, and any deviations based on objects the code operates on are right there in front of you, not hidden in 4 virtual function implementations in different files.

It’s all special-case code you have to write anyway, but if written in OOP fashion, the complexity of it is most of the time unclear, and it’s hard to judge what code will actually be doing just by glancing at it.