mashpoe

It would allow him to brutally roast anyone who submits a sub-optimal merge request.

I made a pretty convenient C vector library a while back that lets you use the [] operator directly on the vector pointers: https://github.com/Mashpoe/c-vector

A neat project that was posted here a while back uses it: https://x.com/kotsoft/status/1792295331582869891

I figured. I'm not sure if the author meant that it was an inherent drawback, but it does seem like he still has a bit of lingering bias towards X11 in his reassessment article.

The author talked about cursor latency being worse with Wayland, and claimed that it was likely a consequence of the major architectural differences between X11 and Wayland. Is this an inherent drawback of Wayland, or is it just something that's true for one implementation, e.g. GNOME?

Scratch is the only type of visual programming I've enjoyed using. It's easy to read if you're an experienced programmer because it has the same structure as regular code, and it's easy to read for beginners because everything is broken into large blocks that have what they do written right on them. The way code is structured in most programming languages is actually very logical and intuitive, and it's the most successful system we have so far. The problem for beginners is that they can't figure out if they enjoy programming until they've learned the syntax, which can be very discouraging for some people. I've seen Scratch bridge that gap for people a couple of times, and I think it's probably the best model when it comes to teaching people to code.

I think other types of models would only be useful for situations where writing code isn't the most intuitive way to make something. From my limited experience, a visual system for making shaders is a pretty good idea, because ideally, you don't want to have many conditional branches or loops, but you might have a lot of expressions that would look ugly in regular code.

It's weird being able to highlight animated text like this

Anyone who knows anything about VPN services knows that they don't stop people from looking in on what you're doing; they only stop people other than the provider from doing so.

Most if not all of the big VPN providers collect data and give it to law enforcement, which isn't exactly news to us.

Tom Scott had a pretty good video on what VPNs can actually deliver on, despite the claims of many sponsored content creators. He lost his VPN sponsorship because he pointed out, among other things, that you don't actually have guaranteed privacy with these services.

> It lets a lot of innovation happen in other languages, then takes the successful parts for itself

The only time I've ever had to use Java was for a computer science class, and I thought it was a solid language (pun intended), but I hated its half-assed attempt at operator overloading.

I think it's a major feature that's long overdue to be fully implemented in Java, because it's already used for some of Java's built-in classes and it's proven useful in many other programming languages.

Most of Java seems very well-thought-out to me, but for some reason they decided to add only some operator overloading, instead of planning ahead more.

I remember hearing somewhere that they were planning on adding operator overloading, but last I checked it didn't look like it was going anywhere.

I don't even get the idea of these web versions. They just seem like buzzwords to me.

Sure there are differences in the general trends with how people interact with the web and internet, but it's more complicated than that.

I understand the difference between Web1 an Web2 since web pages have become a lot more interactive over the years, but that doesn't justify making special terms for old and modern sites. Nobody goes around saying "this website is Web1 and this one is Web2." If a website looks old you just say it looks old.

There's no specific cutoff point that makes sense for web versions. Websites have slowly become more and more interactive over the years. Since pages started to become interactive, there have been so many changes to the web that are arguably just as worthy to get their own version numbers. CSS has gained so much more functionality, JavaScript has become a compilation target, and with the advent of WebAssembly, virtually any programming language to be used on the web.

All of the things that make Web3 different from Web2 seem like niche use cases for the web, not something that will replace everything like more interactive web pages have. There won't be any decentralized websites, there will just be a bunch of regular websites where you create an account to interact with technology that has been around for over a decade.

The other changes I mentioned actually pertain to the web, while the trendy stuff like the "metaverse" and "blockchain" actually have nothing to do with the web. Maybe they can interact with the web, but a lot of things can interact with the web. With the click of a button I can have virtually anything delivered to my doorstep, but for some reason owning a picture of a monkey is more impressive to some people.

I feel like the added complexity of digital storage just means there are more ways to attack and there's more that can go wrong in general. Physical documents can only exist in one place at any given time and are probably much easier to protect.

In case you aren't joking, inheritance in the context of computer programming (for simplicity's sake) is just a metaphor that's supposed to make computer programming easier and has nothing to do with economics.

Assuming that statistic is true, how do you know countries with more innovation don't just end up producing big corporations that lobby for more control over ideas that they don't want to compete for?

People like to say that without patents there will be no incentive to advance technology, but if you're the one to come up with an idea then you already have a huge head start. If you don't make use of that head start, then you don't deserve it, and this applies to patents as well.

Monopolies are bad, and competition is good. Everyone is already incentivized to come up with and implement ideas faster than their competitors. Giving one person a monopoly just restricts others from creating competing products and only gives the user a worse and more expensive product.

how do you even get 18% from 36 participants? 7/36 = 19.4% and 6/36 = 16.6%. I know they said "roughly" but I don't see why how you could round to that number.