pistoleer

Not technical/concrete (examples are missing!) enough for me to really understand what techniques the author is getting at. How would the author achieve all these exclusion mechanisms in a distributed system instead of letting the database engine handle that?

Those cat corridors are cool as shit. I love little doors and hidden hallways, it's almost victorian. I would only worry about "noise" leaking out of the bedrooms...

I don't understand how this is a relevant criticism of my system.

If you are already ignoring the actual chord "voicing" as written in the "classical" system, then just keep doing that in my system??

If you are already able to intuit that a note should go elsewhere, then keep doing that for your jazz sets? What's the issue again?

"Gsus4x5" is just as unreadable and ignorable and malleable as "G+5+4".

E-G is a 3 semitone interval and G-C is 5 semitones so it's an E+3+5 chord. If you wanna play it on piano, that means leave a gap of 2 keys and then a gap of 4 keys.

Known in western classical harmonization theory as "Em+" (E chord with minor third, augmented 5th). C first inv is actually Gsus4add6no5 or as I like to call it G+5+4. It has an incredibly warm and rich tone, nothing like C+4+3 (C major triad).

It works in C because all of its notes are also present in the C major scale, but that's just a coincidence. Calling it a C inverted chord is like making astrological or numerological conclusions.

And no, shifting up or down by octaves is not the same sound. It's close but not equal. You can probably get away with octave substitutions in a busy song but you can not say it sounds exactly the same. A 9th is not a 2nd. 11 not 4, 13 not 6. When you play La Campanella, is that your excuse for skipping those octave jumps? :)

As I said, unpopular opinion :)

Unpopular opinion: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then dude, it's a duck.

Inverted chords have, in my ears, never sounded anything like the chords they are supposedly an inversion of. It's like saying "10 is just really 3+7". It's true, and it's also useless. Let 10 be 10. Let 3 be 3. Etc.

Most composers don't even use this system as they compose, it's just for after the fact analysis. Composers hear a tune in their head and then transcribe it. Unless they're writing cookie cutter shit without inspiration, then they might synthesize some soulless crap that intentionally follows some well known chord progression as picked by a dart thrown at a poster of the circle of fifths.

Russia has plenty of meat for the grinder. Being embarrassed isn't gonna stop them.

After some thinking, the ternary conditional operator can be decomposed into 2 composing binary operators like such:

? takes a bool, a T, and returns option<T>

true?b == Result b

false?b == None

: takes an Option<T> and a T and returns T

Result x : y == x

None : y == y

However, in most languages (looking at you php) the ?: act as a type of parenthesis: in a?b:c, any expression goes into b, no matter it's precedence.

> Your answer makes me not like you in fact it incites hatred.

Why are you so aggrieved? What's the big deal?

The second way is the antiquated british english meaning of the phrase.

It's got a kind of "all but" deal going on: two ways to interpret it.

Really annoying how the English language can't get quantifying phrases right.

The VW Golf manual does 4.7L/100km

What makes for a good or bad virtual desktop implementation?

> In Go or Rust, returning an error is also a “color” that spreads out to the top of the call stack.

That's wrong... Suppose A calls B and B returns a Result<T> (so it's colored as you say). A can match both the Some() and the Err() variants of B and return something other than the error in the latter case. So A can shed the color. There is no way to "shed" async-ness like that in javascript.

Swift solves this by using witness tables. Witness table is a skeleton of the desired record shape. It records offsets of desired fields as found in the actual supplied record. Each function call the actual record is not passed, but its corresponding witness table instead.

For instance, if the "prototype" of the argument is {int foo, float bar}, and I supply {int foo, int baz, float bar}, the table will be {foo: base+0 bytes, bar: base+8 bytes}.

Use a generic function signature that takes in a `void*`. Inside the specialized function bodies, cast the void* to an `actual_type*`, then dereference.

For the same reason python is seen as easier: guardrails and checks are just an impediment right?

It's not well laid out. The examples are malformed/illegal and the ifdef thing is stupid.

The author admits to not being a C undefined behavior expert and yet acts like they might know better than a tool made by such experts.

Looking up the rules and verifying the shown snippets takes at most 30 minutes at a leisurely pace, the author could have saved themselves the embarrassment.

I'm not going to write a blog post about how I didn't expect a color spectrometer pointed at the sky to say "BLUE" because I thought it might have been purple, "although I'm not an expert in wave lengths".

It's worse than that. This guy takes a void* function and casts it to a char* function, then passes it a char**.

    void (*name)(char *ptr);
    typedef void (*name_func)(char *ptr);

    void target(void *ptr)
    {
       printf("Input %p\n", ptr);
    }


    char *data = "string";
    name = (name_func)target; // Illegal: casting fn that takes void* to a fn that takes char*
    name(&data); // Illegal: passing a char** into a function that takes char*

Before someone mentions qsort(): the comparator function really is supposed to take a void*, and inside the function, you re-cast the void* argument to a pointer type of your desire. If you don't do it in that order, you're using it wrong.

Man rants about not expecting weird type system abuse that works on his machine to be undefined behavior

> A government paying for a thing does not in any way imply that the thing is a good use of money.

Agreed, nor is the inverse implied of course. But what is your point?

> How many decades of fabric replacements could you get from the savings of bolting on a simple metal frame as compared to an elaborate electromechanically actuated arm mechanism?

That's what I'm saying, fabric doesn't really need to get replaced in 15 years and going from personal experience. The mechanism is simple enough to be reliable as well.

Ultimately, it's impossible to analyze the cost benefits of this. It's a matter of personal taste and what the harshness of the local climate allows. I don't doubt that fixed awnings are cheaper - but actuating awnings fix their drawbacks, and the maintenance they introduce is minimal in my experience. And frankly, for the price of giving up a single vacation in 15+ years, it's not that expensive. Again, cheap enough that those in social housing can make the choice to get them installed.

ETA: my point of mentioning social housing is to say that people with lower income can still get them. The government doesn't pay for it. I just wanted to paint a picture of the relative cost.

In the Netherlands it costs around a grand, as for maintenance... Haven't needed to do any in more than 15 years. The actual screen retracts into a weather proof metal casing, so there's not that much that goes wrong, whereas fixed awnings are exposed to the full weather gamut 24/7.

Let me put it this way: it's cheap enough that a lot of social housing and other cheap forms of housing inhabited by the "lower class" feature them.

Flies: they get inside and nestle in my fruit, annoy me and distract me, get in my face.

Bees and wasps: they settle and build nests in nooks and crannies of roofs. I don't have a problem with bees per se, although they can probably keep disturbing eating in the garden. Otoh they may pollinate flowers in the garden. Wasps on the other hand are truly a pest. I've lived in a house with wasps in the roof, constant wasps in the attic, leading to an unusable attic for about a year.

Bats: no idea, never had them so far. But I've lived in a neighborhood where they were nestled inside the outer layers of roofs. Just like other animals I imagine they "shit and piss all over the place" so to speak. But they're also protected where I live, so once they are there, you can't even get rid of them.

What scares me about eaves and cupolas is that they seem attractive spots for bats and insects to nest. I have a covered sort of outdoor hallway leading to my home, and it's swarmed with all sorts of flies during the summer because it's not as hot as out in the sun. What's your experience?

It surprises me to read about "fixed metal frame" awnings. You don't _have_ to make that trade off.

In the Netherlands a lot of houses have electrically retractable awnings (or even just mechanically windable by hand), especially above the giant windows facing the back yard.

During winter and bad weather, we retract the awning. When it's too sunny, we deploy it.

typical row house layout with big windows on both sides: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doorzonwoning

retractable awning: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zonnescherm

FBO = fixed base operator = private jet terminal or service provider at airports that caters to general aviation (non-commercial) flights. FBOs provide services like fueling, hangar space, and sometimes even customs clearance for international flights.

> In some sense reality has to be of that nature, because the odds of us existing by chance is so small it suggests that our model is wrong and our existence was in fact guaranteed.

Sampling bias: we only exist to perceive the reality in which we exist. the countless realities in which we don't exist, we don't experience.

> if all went well this object should

Why not make it easier for yourself and be able to turn that into

> The compiler will tell me when this object won't

That's a phd dissertation with hundreds of pages, wrong link maybe?

How would you go about collecting the user requirements of the readers? Do they pay for the development?

Who will replicate the consensus checker?

I agree with that, in the context of dynamically typed languages.

Slowly but surely, new languages are starting to develop with static duck typing. Implicit interfaces if you will.