shric

Sure, I'd join, also just a casual player -- still rated 1700 on lichess (1200 on chess.com) despite 15,000+ games :p

Yeah, not particularly proud of the "achievement". I play for fun. My rating has not increased much since I started because I don't really do deliberate practice. I don't analyse my games, etc.

You're pretty much spot on. My average game length is 5 minutes and 7 seconds. lichess tells me my time spent playing is 54 days, 5 hours and 6 minutes and now 15,273 games.

It works out to average just under an hour a day, and I play most days.

Breakdown: 6,157 bullet (90+% are 1+0 but a few 2+1) 7,430 blitz (90+% are 5+0 but a few 3+2) 1,368 rapid (99+% are 10+0) 184 classical (100% are 30+0)

I've also played a small handful of correspondence, chess960, etc. which is why it doesn't quite add up.

I joined lichess in Nov 2018 and have played 15,269 games. It'll be more by the time most people read this :p

You could just bookmark https://lichess.org/@/yourusername/all

Also, does chess.com have anything similar to https://lichess.org/insights/yourusername or https://lichess.org/analysis#explorer where you can select "Player" and see how openings play out for your games only (as well as masters and the whole of lichess of course)?

(for the obtuse, replace "yourusername" above with your actual lichess username)

Strongly agree with you. Both the chess playing UI and exploring the rest of the site -- lichess is vastly superior.

Prominent example when you click "Play" you go to https://www.chess.com/play and get presented with a chess board. At this point, it actually lets you make an initial move. But you're not playing anyone! You then need to click, for example, "Play online".

The rest of the site is disorganised. For example there's stuff under "Learn" and "Resources" and I can never remember where to find things.

For better or worse, "X has died" is some kind of standard on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=%22has+died%22

I've been on the Sydney SCG waitlist since 2009, few more years to go.

It gets crazier:

−7th: absop

−6th: absackle

−5th: absnap

−4th: abserk

−3rd: abseleration

−2nd: absity

−1st: absement

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absement

And I just realised the GP already mentioned the bloom_path issue. Sorry, too late to edit.

> There is also strange code like this loop https://github.com/hashlookup/fleur/blob/4ee2644a850381d928a... that jumped into my eye.

The line below that is worse:

strncpy(bloom_path , argv[optind], 128);

If you pass something >= 128 chars then bloom_path won't be null terminated. In general strncpy should never be used for copying strings.

For expansion on that: https://ramblings.implicit.net/c/2014/05/02/c-functions-that...

It used to be hosted by https://nist.gov/ at expect.nist.gov

Here is it in 1997, it hasn't changed much.

https://web.archive.org/web/19971210131642/http://expect.nis...

Yeah, I didn't know either, but Google did. It's filler words people use that don't add anything:

like, you know, etc.

I think C Programming: A Modern Approach by K.N. King is great.

It's not a puzzle, it's taken from a game, so the sequence isn't necessarily always the strongest moves

It's depends what/who's inside the trolley.

It censors puss for some reason. What a sourpuss.

If it's compiled with a C++ compiler as C++ then it's C++ code. In this example the meaning is the same but some "C code" will produce different results depending on whether you compile it as C or C++.

(2014)

Previously discussed:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15121020

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20549264

Back in Australia now

https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ showing everything is fine (at the time of writing).

Agreed.

Australia reporting errors: https://downdetector.com.au/status/wikipedia/

But fine in North America from where I've tested.

Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31845330

SRE - Site Reliability Engineer (a term Google came up with that's been adopted elsewhere) Google defined it approximately as what happens when you apply software engineering practices to what was traditionally an operations function.

SLO - Service Level Objective - the service level you strive for. If it's higher you have room for experimentation, etc.

SLI - Service Level Indicator - the actual metric(s) you use to measure a service level (latency, error rate, throughput, etc.)

An SLA of 100% simply means you agree to compensate your customers (as specified, usually with credit) if your service is down at all, nothing more.

Also, SRE here but not for Cloudflare -- I've never seen SREs directly involved in externally published SLAs, they usually come from legal. We deal with SLOs on more fine grained SLIs than overall uptime

Are there places to host an independent bare-metal box where the internet provider for that box is more reliable than cloudflare?

As well as generated files the sibling mentioned I wonder how much is due to vendoring.

It's useful when you have a large screen with multiple windows that are tiled and dedicated to a single work function. For example a terminal on one side and a browser on the other that's dedicated to specific work. You may then have another virtual desktop dedicated to messaging, video editing, whatever...

In well designed WMs like i3 each desktop is typically bound to a key for instant switching, unlike the full screen atrocity of macOS where there is an unremovable delay when switching.

I've always liked the definition of making sense to ask what it's like to be something as an indicator of consciousness.

For example, you can try to imagine what it's like to be a dog, but it doesn't make much sense to ask what it's like to be a toaster.

What's it like to be an artificial neural network? I don't think that's valid, nor is there any good evidence that we're making progress.

Is there a simple example you can point to of rejected code that should work perfectly fine?