jonasenordin

Went ahead and clicked anyway, scientifically-minded that I am. No appreciable disillusionment occurred.

Didn't Excel gain the ability to use names at some point?

Is 'anominal' a word? As in 'anominal' or 'non-nominal' programming, or 'un-' or 'dis-'. Maybe Excel rises to 'pseudonominal'.

--- quote ---

Most users would use below nested IF function

=IF(B2=$F$3,$G$3,IF(B2=$F$4,$G$4,IF(B2=$F$5,$G$5,IF(B2=$F$6,$G$6,IF(B2=$F$7,$G$7,IF(B2=$F$8,$G$8))))))

Important_Distinction. _That_Should_Be_in_the_Headline_Maybe.

Thanks, saving a click, not going for the article; not that it's necessarily bad or uninteresting; not that I wouldn't if I had more time on this planet.

I recently happened upon a comment (not on HN) that seemed to treat 'zugzwang' as a synonym for 'deadlock'. Possibly because 'zugzwang' sounds really cool and makes your inner voice sound intelligent to your inner ear.

I haven't kept up with C++ in a few years - what does constexpr do for local variables?

  constexpr double a0 = 1.5707288;

Tell it to "always when I search for quoted text, pretend you're the Galaxy S20 gallery app"

And it's actually a good thing that it hasn't come any closer.

The simple English article seems to imply the True Justified Belief 'definition'. I don't think the TJB really gets us anything.

For instance: why is 'true' included in the TJB triad? 'Justified' should cover it, no? This gap seems to be the cause of the Gettier silliness.

To expand on each part: 'believe' is a rather tricky Theory-of-Mind concept in itself. Eg: how familiar with a scientific model like AGW do you need to be to be allowed to 'believe' it? 'True' is similarly difficult. 'Justified' is the most sensible part, but that is still very difficult. I think science is what it boils down to.

I think philosophers really badly want a concept of Knowledge that is a meaningful and 'hard'. For their own title to make sense, actually. They love it; shame if it was all sloppy thinking.

Conductivity: Film at Eleven

Java has interface types.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_(Java)

This expression is often misused, it seems. It sounds so cool, 'scorched-earth tactics'... like 'medieval', 'fire-and-brimstone', 'kill it with fire', etcetera.

Maybe read up on the specifics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

And BTW, there just aren't any 1M+ shells per month to send. Maybe in 2028 or something. Production takes time to build.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ammunition-ukraine/ (Aug-24)

The alternatives to using previously or normally civilian buildings are, I believe, to be outdoors or in tents. Originally military buildings are too few and probably already in bad shape.

Is this _really_ how you want the game to be played?

Very nice. Made me think of Paul Simon, made me relisten to Graceland, the song. Always a great listen, great sound. Thought it was just about him paying tribute to musical roots, 'Mississippi delta' and all that. But wait what? 'after the failure of his marriage.'... 'Actress and author Carrie Fisher'. Well internet, Today I Learned.

Huge aside aside, aren't these songs a little similar?

I use a very low-tech solution: I stick a <pre> tag at the start of javadoc comments, and make liberal use of empty lines for spacing.

So I don't use any advanced html tags and stuff. Of course I use @link, which is the most useful feature of javadoc.

BTW, maybe the 'meaning' of <style> tags should be clarified for ambitious documenters... It seems they only affect the one javadoc they are inside of, which is pretty useless.

If status codes bleed into 6xx we'll know HE COMES.

I am starting an early warning system, a daemon process, polling random web sites for status lines like this. Do I need to handle Unicode?

Brings to mind Robert Pirsig's 'value rigidity' concept: 'an inability to revalue what one sees because of commitment to previous values.' I don't remember if there was a term for the opposite, but 'flexibility' seems to be right.

Good observations. Actually more important than it looks, I think. All those little helpful things.

Also worth discussing: micro-misfeatures to be avoided when designing new languages. Maybe non-micro-misfeatures, ie the lack thereof, can be considered a microfeature. Like, for example, uniformity.

And I just have to trot out my favorite example: Java import statements do not allow keywords and numbers in package names. So we can't put our Java source code in folders named 'import', 'long', or in paths like '2023/01/'. Great. For no good-enough reason - the syntax would actually be cleaner with a separate package name syntax. (BTW, this could be fixed, I think.)

Nestable comment syntax is also nice. At least some MLs (eg SML) has it, that I know of.

Indentation-sensitivity can also solve similar problems. (Indentation does not have to exclude requiring graphic termination. A formal language can require both. Or just a helpful tool.)

(Also agree with 'kebab-case', although the name is new to me and a bit weird.)

Yes! And corresponds nicely with 'spats' for solid angles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spat_(angular_unit)

1 spat = 4 pi steradians.

True. Many tanks have been destroyed. But the zillion tanks destroyed are often presented without context, and used to imply that resistance has a better prospect than is realistic. The number of remaining enemy tanks (or whatever) is seldom mentioned. Well, I guess that's what the GP was implying.

Yes, for individuals, it's worse. For accurate information, it's probably a wash, or a close call. There are so many other ways of biasing information streams than overt oppression.

Thanks. This article seems to bear this out:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60638949

If Chernobyl is in Russian hands, how do the Ukrainians know it's lost power?

It seems that the plane had to go all the way around the closed airspaces of Finland and Norway (well, Scandinavia) to reach the Atlantic. Or maybe it's the projection.

Add Pi to locale?

I guess the article was too complete, too well laid out, to leave room for comments.

I think if you buy a first ticket, and somehow found out (but lotteries usually don't allow this) that it wasn't a winner, and only _then_ buying a second one, your reasoning would be correct.

This is turns out to be rather straightforward once you realize that this is perfectly symmetric: it's just a matter of in which order you are revealing the colors. So this problem is exactly the same as looking at the first (second) ball, seeing that it's blue, then drawing a (revealing the already drawn) second ball. So there are two reds and one blue 'left'. So 1/3. (I am 95% sure...)

Children have a very strong sense of fairness!

...EVERYONE!