Discussed a few days ago (234 points, 73 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40689759
1,485 karma · joined November 6, 2012
Basic C understanding (Memory, Stack, Heap, Syscall)."
Obviously, since C doesn't prescribe any kind of heap, stack or syscall behavior (or if they even exist), I assume the author meant something like "Basic understanding of how C is often implemented on certain operating systems and hardware".
At the time of writing based on total games played at https://database.lichess.org/ one in every 272,369 games are mine :p
But yes indeed, the single example game he showed was indeed a result of the winner playing very silly moves and the loser allowing it rather than resigning.
Fundamentally all chess moves are a piece moving from one source to another destination including:
- castling as a king move with a distance greater than 1
- pawn moves to the 8th or 1st rank with the additional datum of a new piece
- en passant is the same as a regular pawn capture, it just requires the victim pawn to have moved two squares previously.
Algebraic notation also has an arbitrary and reasonable amount of extraneous detail despite dropping the source location if it's unambiguous.
For example, the captures (x), check(+) and checkmate(#) symbols are all unnecessary given the previous state of the board is always known. With en passant it's also unnecessary to have a special symbol indicating an en passant capture, and indeed there isn't one.
I was initially hoping to get some insight on e.g. which pairs of squares had the fewest moves for a given piece etc.
That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the video. It was beautifully illustrated and explained everything clearly.
It's doable, but it doesn't "just work".
If nano ever gets run for some reason (e.g. I forgot to set EDITOR) I immediately quit and launch vim.
I readily admit nano is easier for beginners to get something done, but I don't see any value in it if you already know vim enough for basic edits.
This is 100% correct. The parent of the parent is confused (or is just using terminology incorrectly) as are the current siblings to my comment.
One post claims pointers carry length information so that free works. This has nothing to do with pointers, it has to do with the implementation of malloc and friends. It's only a promise of a successful malloc that you can free, nothing to do with the pointer other than it was returned by malloc. Pointers can point to all sorts of things, the only information they intrinsically have are the type of the object they point to and its address.
Two posts claim a function can return an array of bytes. This is impossible in C. You can't return an array of bytes. You can return a pointer that might point into a continuous sequence of bytes. You could also return a struct whose member is an array, but that's rarely done. When you return (or pass) what looks like an array syntactically, it is converted to a pointer to its first element.
Arrays, on the other hand, always carry length information via the sizeof operator. A special hand waving case would be you could define a pointer to an array (not a pointer to the first element of an array), so in effect the length is contained within the pointer type. E.g. char (*foo)[42] declared foo as a pointer to an array of char with length 42.
However, I don't think any materialist would deny laws of physics exist. We might say that how materials interact with each other is an intrinsic property of material itself, just as an electron behaves as though it has a certain mass.
What definition of material would you use that separates it from its laws?
People who are depressed are less likely to have the initiative/will power to get out of bed and do some moderate exercise.
The universe does not know or care about our laws and they are incomplete.
For example, we have no idea how consciousness works, so at this point we stop at "I don't know", rather than inventing explanations.
I don't know if consciousness is computable -- I suspect it isn't.
If it is not computable then we cannot come up with laws to explain it.
Or maybe the whole universe is computable but its kolmogorov complexity is larger than its information capacity.
I first tried LSD about 10 years ago and have taken various forms of psychedelics once or twice a year since. Some of them were, without a doubt, the most profound experiences of my life. You're right about the vague transcendentalist nonsense. The problem is there are no words to describe it adequately.
Despite only having pleasant experiences myself, I would never encourage any friend or stranger to try them. That is something only they can decide with their own research and risk appetite. There are absolutely serious potential consequences.
I think the worst consequence for me is that I have started to like weird music like psytrance even when sober.
With i3 I bind keys to specific things (including workspaces) so I can switch instantly.
For those not familiar with the slang, "Scooby" is apparently a response to say one doesn't understand what you're talking about and could use a clue.
However, even a Google search on the typo of "repoructive" was able to reveal what I meant with zero context.
The inability to focus and lack of memory recall, for example, may either not matter or just be negligible compared to other factors.
While ADHD does lead to focus problems, people with ADHD are usually just as good at focusing as anyone else when their life depends on it.
Yes some people will be scammed as they always have been, such as the recent Hong Kong financial deepfake. But no, millions of people will not keep falling for this. Just like the classic 419 advanced free fraud, it will hit a very small percentage of people.
I've had a .net.au since 1999 and the same rules apply there.
- bad touch screens that lag.
- even more lag when you're trying to pay.
- frequent (about 60% of visits) requirement for staff because it disagrees that I've put something in the bagging area, or some other reason
- unnecessary and slow modal dialogs about rewards programmes, receipt etc. I wish there was just a "leave me alone and let me pay by card" button that just lets me tap and pay.
I still use them most of the time because there is almost never a queue, but if the human checkout lines are empty or almost empty I'll use them instead, it's much faster.
If OP had expanded on why it was low quality other than just saying it's incomplete then I wouldn't have raised it.