Obviously not. Obviously the first thing for someone who wants to learn graphics programming is to learn Rust. I'm surprised you asked.
3,913 karma · joined July 2, 2010
"A wiki" is a type of software. But when you use "Wiki" as a proper noun, referring to one specific instance, that's the name of Ward's Wiki, the original wiki, also known as wikiwikiweb, available at wiki.c2.com .
I'm guessing that you were not citing Ward's Wiki, but were rather citing some other site, in particular the site that contains this advice on citing it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_abbreviate_%...!
I recognize that the above para sort of sounds like I think I have some authority to mediate between them, which is not true and not what I think. I'm just replying to this side conversation about how to be polite in public, just giving my take.
The broad pattern here is that there are norms around how and when you use someone's name when addressing them, and when you deviate from those norms, it signals that something is weird, and then the reader has to guess what is the second most likely meaning of the rest of the sentence, because the weird name use means that the most likely meaning is not appropriate.
For another example, imagine if OpenAI had never been a non-profit, and look at the board yesterday. You'd have had Ilya reporting to Sam (as employees), while Sam reports to Ilya (with Ilya as one member of the board, and probably a major stakeholder).
Now, when it gets hostile, those loops might get pretty weird. When things get hostile, you maybe modify reporting structures so the loops go away, so that people can maintain sane boundaries and still get work done (or gracefully exit, who knows).
And you don't need a "clean income history", that's not a real thing. You need all the people on the mortgage to have a stable job, typically 6 months. If your source of income is more variable/complicated, they'll ask for 2 years of tax returns.
This kind of doomerism is why I wanted to support applied_heat's post in the first place.
This is
(a) just actually not literally true (41N at the border vs 43N),
(b) particularly off-base when you consider that "northern California" is typically a reference to the SF Bay Area
(c) completely deceptive.
Four months of the year with around two feet of snow, with an average low below freezing. San Francisco has barely ever gone below freezing in its entire historical record (literal record low of −3C a hundred years ago).
Yes yes, you don't have igloos in Toronto, fair point. But a person who drives on summer tires year round in Toronto is a homicidal maniac. In Vancouver that's merely lazy, an excuse to call in sick a few days a year.
No argument about Minnesota, though, nor about The Texas Of The North. And yes, it's hardly never-ending winters. The summers in T.O. are brutal too.
Right, okay. And, to be clear, back in my day 5% down (FIVE) was totally plan A, so that has gotten harder for the next generation. Thanks, fedgov!
> difficult to work with
Heh, notwithstanding the amusing savagery of my sibling comment, is "difficult to work with" a euphemism for "impossible to work with", or do you have reason to believe that this is even possible?
> It sucks if you are a single person
I would say that it's getting closer to hopeless if you're a single-income family, and being a single-income individual isn't much better, because 1br condos are actually not that much cheaper than 1br.
I'm in a condo, btw, and I could have done it on my income alone when I bought (laxer stress tests, I provided the down solo anyway, rates were lower, prices were lower), but I could not buy this condo solo today, and certainly not with the income I had then.
I guess my overall message is: I think that the type of financial modelling you were doing is excellent to show that it is not yet impossible or hopeless, and if someone wants to make it happen, it's still within reach... but... it's genuinely really hard. For decades I've been scoffing at people whining about affordability, saying that they just spend too much on short-term pleasures, but in the last decade I've kinda stopped the scoffing and shut my mouth.
1) My impression is that it's prettttty tough to get those 10% down mortgages these days. Though, again, that's behind me now, I could be wrong.
2) The bank will not consider your accom to be mortgage-minus-sublet-rent for the stress test, I promise you. They'll count your rent as additional income, at some discount (fuck you, bank), and then count 30% of that against your mortgage payment (for the stress test). I guess if you know someone who actually got this past the bank stress test then let us know, and let us know which bank, because I'll move the next time my mortgage comes up. But I have tried in the past. So you'd need a joint income of 200k (I trusted your estimate of mortgage at present rates on $810k), minus 10k/a for the rent, is $95k each, $46/h.
Still. Although it is definitely difficult, it is, as you say doable.
The interesting part is that it's allegedly a trick to get people to stop conflating the two, or cheating.
This Windows computer doesn't force reboots (though it does nag me), it hasn't tried to trick me to upgrade to 11, it isn't sending telemetry to MS, it has never forced me to sign up for a non-local account.
I think it does force security updates on me, which I think is clearly pro-user, though arguably not respectful.
I also decided to use Edge to access my job's shitty Outlook stuff, and every ten minutes Edge tries to trick me into doing something, including but not restricted to making itself the default (you can pry my Firefox from my cold dead...). Until I decided to try Edge, it has not ever done anything to try to get me to use Edge.
That said, I'm not agreeing with GP that Windows "has more respect for the user than Linux does", that just seems confused to me. But I also think that I read a lot of criticism of Windows that seems laughable.
I can still remember Marek Dubcek (I'm probably spelling his name wrong) bragging about his performance at Duke3d or Q1, and thinking "fuck him, he's too good-looking to be better than me at a video game", and learning to use mouselook back when you had to handwrite your own config file to use mouselook without holding down Shift.
I took the WAD files for Q1 apart, ripped out all the content for the monster AI and the campaign levels and stuff, so that I could make a zip that fit on 4 1.44 floppies, carry it in my pocket, install it on demand on computers on the Cap labs (I wasn't larcenous/brave enough to compromise the network share like some other people).
(PS: if anyone recognizes me from that much information, get in touch)
Once upon a time, I owned a 19" CRT that weighed less than a typical 17" CRT. Such good fortune. Still, I never did have the courage to carry my tower on one hip and my monitor on the other (and everything else in a backpack), so I guess it didn't really benefit me that much after all.
> most lasted upwards of 12 hours.
You're damn right. Imagine carting a CRT around and then only staying for half a day. Ha!
I feel like if my entire income stream was buying, renovating to improve value, and selling, and my spouse and I had a family income of $300k per year, and we could only get the income tax waived on $250k of that (me one year, my spouse the next), and thus were only paying income tax on one sixth of our income, I'd feel like I wasn't paying very much income tax.
Though. I mean. Currently I teach post-secondary for a living, so the idea of a $300k two-earner family income sounds like a dream, no matter what the taxes, so maybe my intuitions about the incentives of house-flippers are off the mark.
It seems to me that the incentive-difference is that in the US, the tax code is telling you to flip often, or not flip at all.
Another big difference in tax policy, if I recall correctly, is that Americans don't pay tax on mortgage interest. Seems to me, that incentivizes Americans to over-leverage on paying mortgage interest. Don't worry though, in Canada these days, we too over-leverage on mortgages, because otherwise we're homeless, as per the article. I sure wish I could tax-deduct my mortgage interest, because that's the main thing I spend money on.
But I've noticed that many many many people report the same effect, that there's something about pen-and-paper writing that's more effective for thought-lubrication. I resisted for a long time, but now I too am a convert to this school of thought.
Similarly almost everyone notices the downside: it's easier to reorder, reorganize, cross-link, etc, those thoughts, in a text editor (to say nothing of more sophisticated software tools). Some people have systems for doing complicated things with paper that they say mitigates this downside, but I am not currently one of them.
I guess it's possible that your brain just doesn't have this pattern in it. (That is, the pattern of finding pen-and-paper more effective for getting the thoughts to flow.) I mean, for all I know, maybe the huge silent majority doesn't have this pattern.
You are entitled to no adaptation from others. Your reactions to their "errors" are your problem, and your responsibility, although of course you can choose to start a fight over whatever you want.
On the other hand, if you do not adapt to them, sometimes they will choose to start a fight over it, or be offended, or whatever. As such, if you want to improve your social outcomes, consider allocating energy to adapting to others.
See? Simple. No centralized decision-making necessary. Each person can ruin their own life however they choose.
And I agree (with some commenters) that the "Uh" makes it look way worse than it would otherwise. :) I learned something from both your comment and from the criticisms. Yay.
--
Though I think "you shouldn't rely on the Internet" is not quite summarizing it exactly correctly (not a complaint about the original comment, just trying to improve on the summary). It's not "relying on the internet" that's the problem, it's some weird conjunction of a few things that are each fine. I will try to expand, fumblingly.
(1) Obviously you could have a conversation with an expert-in-the-space over the internet, so clearly it's not the internet that's the problem. (2) Obviously you can get good results off Google, for example by googling "textarea bidi", so it's not Google that's the problem. And, heck it, compared to not having an internet to search, the internet does a lot to reveal the hidden complexity that we wouldn't otherwise even be aware of.
So we could propose that the problem is non-experts doing things (i.e. we could encourage gatekeeping), but wait, that's not right either, because that would imply that Mo shouldn't have created Standard Notes until they were an expert in all relevant things (which turns out to include something something multilingual something), and clearly if Standard Notes wasn't delivering great value without that expertise, then they wouldn't be getting "requests to add right to left language support". So obviously Mo had more than enough expertise to do what they did.
I dunno. I dunno what the pithy version of the takeaway could be. We might just have to settle with the longer version from your original comment.
"[Neither you, nor google, knows] what you don't know. ... So, if you can, ask people, not software. Especially if you don't know the space."
By which I mean, their superior quality of delivery is the reason I buy stuff from them.
The worst Amazon driver is better in every way than the best Fedex or UPS, and I'm loathe to dignify Canada Post by even mentioning them.
I have no horse in the race, and no ability to assess the law. I just thought it was a pretty interesting claim, and in general my experience has been that Levine seems pretty savvy. Though he hasn't given an update on the July 28th ruling, so shrug.
Here are a few key selections from https://pilotinstitute.com/forward-slip-vs-sideslip/
> Both forward and sideslips involve opposite aileron and rudder input. In a forward slip (typically used to increase drag and decrease altitude), the aircraft’s nose points away from the direction of flight, with the lowered wing facing the direction of flight. In a sideslip (typically associated with the final stage of a crosswind landing), the aircraft’s nose points in the direction of flight, regardless of which wing is lowered.
and
> To understand the difference between a forward and a sideslip, we need to understand the slip in general. A slip, at its core, is an uncoordinated turn. In other words, when the ball of the turn coordinator is not in the middle, you’re in a slip.
So in general, a slip is a situation where you're banking, but not turning, due to opposite inputs to ailerons and rudder (i.e. between stick and pedals).
As I read through all that, I thought I was coming to a decent understanding. However, finally,
> The jargon is unnecessarily confusing – you move forward during a forward and a sideslip, but you don’t move sidewards during a sideslip; you technically move sidewards during a forward slip!?
Hmn.
This is technically not true, as far as I know. That whole idea of Java ME, different "profiles", all that stuff happens in roughly 1998, which is definitely not "from the beginning". Though, looking it up now, apparently the Java Card stuff gets started a little earlier than that (which I didn't know/notice at the time, probably because it apparently wasn't initially a Sun initiative and so I'm guessing Sun's self-promotion didn't mention it in the really early days).
But depending on what your point is, maybe my first paragraph is merely a technical quibble, not a substantive disagreement. Maybe your point is that Java's success has been, in part, due to its ubiquity in small-but-not-tiny devices like "feature phones". Fair enough, I guess, and if that's your point then it doesn't really matter if it was truly "from the beginning", or just "one of the earliest pivots" (which I think is more accurate).
Myself, my point is that DrScientist's reply to quickthrower2 is, as a reply, just straight-up wrong wrong wrong. Java's original premise was twofold: web applets, and desktop apps that didn't need to be maximum performance (note that Swing was also not the original Java GUI toolkit, I've forgotten the name of the thing that preceded it, Swing was certainly much better). Building servers was NOT part of Java's original premise. And quickthrower2 is right: the web ate that original premise. Java had to pivot to live, and did.
I'm getting too pedantic here, but the historical revisionism is winding me up.