grannyg00se

Thanks for the responses. The text is definitely referring to Java methods as functions, and not counting the implicit object instance (this) as a parameter. The text also considers multiple parameters of the same type that are treated identically as lists counting as one parameter.

I'm reading Clean Code (again). I dont see that code as being particularly bad. But it definitely wouldnt follow the axioms in that highly regarded book. I realize it isnt java but can someone familiar with the text comment on the number of parameters in that function and the naming of some of those variables?

Relevant quote: "The ideal number of arguments for a function is zero (niladic). Next comes one (monadic), followed closely by two (dyadic). Three arguments (triadic) should be avoided where possible. More than three (polyadic) requires very special justification—and then shouldn’t be used anyway."

"The further I got through grad school, the more I said "unbounded" rather than "infinite"."

I think there's a huge difference between simply saying "unbounded" compared to going through that detailed explanation you just gave. In the latter case, it's very clear what the difference is. But without the explanation I'd guess that people will think something like this:

    unbounded -> without bound -> infinite

In other words, without the explanation "unbounded" becomes a synonym for "infinite".

So if you cut yourself you get treated as a criminal and tortured? What the hell is going on here? How is this even legal?

And if you're tired of manually dealing with AUR packages (or just lazy) you might want to look into yaourt [1]. It uses the same syntax as pacman but also searches and installs from AUR.

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/yaourt

"the complex dynamic happening here is a major turn-off (Joyent controls the nodejs repo)"

Can you clarify what off-putting complex dynamic you're referring to?

"They didn't like the founders/team, or thought the idea was really good, but missing a couple things, or they had a different direction they'd run it in. So idea theft does happen. "

My two cents:

You can't steal what isn't owned. If you think my idea is really good and then you act on it, you haven't stolen anything from me. I never owned that idea because ideas can't be owned. What if someone else three thousand miles away has the same idea? Do we both own it? Did you steal it from both of us?

On the other hand if, in your scenario, there was an established business plan, and other proprietary details that were taken, that's theft.

I guess it comes down to the details.

I'm not really concerned about my ideas. I'm concerned about someone taking advantage of all my time and effort validating a potential market with an mvp, then swooping in with a slight tweak and crushing me with a new viewpoint and excellent, well funded execution.

I think that's just plain market competition :)

I'd like some way to say ..."hey...I'm going to try something out....I'd like for nobody on the planet to compete for at least 5 years while I give it my best. After that feel free, but in the meantime leave the potential market all to me."

I think that's how some people expect to (ab)use the patent system to their advantage.

Early horseless carriages didn't sell well, if at all. Consumers weren't making the decision to replace the horse and carriage. Continuous innovation and industry and government did that.

Not until the choice is taken away do consumers (appear to) make a change.

We could all be driving electric cars right now if consumers were making real choices. But we won't see a great number of electrics selling until they become so good that the gasoline car is practically taken off of the table as a viable choice. You can then credit the change to the consumers, but it's really much greater forces at work behind the scenes making it happen.

Thinkpad T530 works very well. I've got it running Arch Linux with no features unusable. Hardware brightness and volume controls, webcam, integrated graphics and networking all without issue.

My only regret is that I paid for Windows.

I like that distributed space idea but if you're not in a warm climate that would be a serious annoyance. Who wants to go out in freezing weather to get to the kitchen? you could get your exercise interspersed throughout the day without leaving the tiny house.

I thought this was going to be about bash, vi, SICP, cryptanalysis, emacs, asm, or maybe something about 3d printers, or fpgas, or soldering fine point smd ICs onto home stenciled PCBs.

This isn't about being a hacker at all. It's about doing some entry level penetration testing with a software suite designed for that purpose.

I love the opinionated writing style. I wish I knew more about this so I could relate to the comments about the "compiler braindamage", "mbuf chain stupidity", and "netipl software interrupt bs".

Apparently some people hate the JS/SCHEME meme [1].

http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isnt...

I'd happily agree to Self rather than Scheme but I can't edit now :)

Javascript: Scheme is too unapproachable

It has been a long time since a site has denied me service based on my choice of web browser.

"The basic premise behind the Cookbook is profoundly flawed"

I didn't think the cookbook had a premise. I enjoyed it because it was full of fun sounding, curious articles that one would never find elsewhere. It gave a sense of adventure and quiet rebellion to the reader and it could be enjoyed in peaceful solitude. It could also be used as a guide for fun projects with friends ("let's try to make thermite!") or just some exciting group discussion.

It would be great to see this as an animation showing growth from say...the day google went live to present.

That has nothing to do with AI or anything we're working on.

Agreed, it looks ridiculous having the full enclosure of the laptop (or phone) rendered and floating in front of you when you could just have the screen and keys separate from each other and independently movable.

And at what pixel density? I'd like to know what happens if I take the entire contents of my 1920x1080 desktop and project it say...4 feet away. Does it look like crap or not? For some reason in all of their promo material I can't see a normal looking desktop projected.

They're going to have to show much less marketing hype and much more practical use. Especially for a $3000 pre-order.

"Your laptop is now a hologram" refers to the fact[1] that you won't need a physical machine (aside from the Intel i5 cpu in your pocket). The keyboard is virtual, and the monitor is virtual. Everything else is physical but it's tiny.

[1]best guess

This seems cool if you want to hold your hands in front of you and spin things around in virtual 3D.

Personally I could do without all that - I just want a really nice looking virtual 2D screen projected in front of me so I can finally ditch my fixed-in-place monitor.

"But now the number of fingers you held up doesn't equal the number of items you were counting."

That's true in either case though. Once you finger overflow the real representation is up to interpretation of what came before and what the known base is. That's why (as stated in a previous response) I think base 6 is most appropriate for our hands. You can accurately and naturally represent numbers 0 to 35 with no weird shenannigans.

show ten fingers, close both fists, show ten fingers. (ten plus ten)

show ten fingers, close both fists, show nine fingers. (eleven plus nine)

Anyway...there are other alternatives if you're going to attribute the origin of our numeric system to the number of fingers we have. A base 6 system would be really likely as well. One hand could represent the most significant digit, and the other could represent the least significant digit. Then you could easily count to 35 with your fingers before you finger overflow.

Or you could do a binary finger count where every finger represents a different significant digit. Then you're at 1023 before you finger overflow. This is more unlikely given the large number and the unintuitive idea that each finger represents exponentially more value than the previous one. Plus you end up with some really awkward finger positions to represent certain numbers.

But I'm just not buying the idea that base ten is most likely because we have ten fingers. I'd say the base 6 system is best for our fingers. Overflow in one hand just naturally increments the finger count in the other hand. And as with the base eleven or two systems, each finger always represents the same written glyph.

It wasn't pure binary. It was a decimal system with three large binary steps superimposed.

But your writing system overflowed before your finger overflow. That's not very intuitive. Each finger represents a unique glyph until suddenly on the last finger it takes two glyphs to represent it.

If you were using base eleven you'd put your pebble down when you hit dec(11) aka base11(10). That pebble represents dec(11). Then first finger would be dec(12) aka base11(11) and once again your first finger represents 1.

So in base11 [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A] - pebble - [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,1A]

A pebble and five fingers would be dec(16) instead of dec(15) but your five fingers still represent 5. The pebble represents 11 instead of 10.

But really, once you're into double digits you normally wouldn't be counting on your fingers anymore. You write 10.

"The decimal system is handy considering that people have 10 fingers."

How does having 10 fingers matter in a base ten system? If we're going by finger count a base11 system seems more appropriate - we'd have a unique symbol for each finger. And that way you can count all the values of the first position with your fingers and you only move to double digit numbers when you run out of fingers.

Anyway, as alluded to in the article, we should be using a base12 system: http://io9.com/5977095/why-we-should-switch-to-a-base+12-cou...

Usally in environment variables rather than a config file.

for example https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/config-vars

12 days of the budget for the entire us military sounds like a pretty damn good amount of money. Quick lookup indicates that's something like 21 billion dollars.