ternaryoperator

And especially when all means of communications with those friends and family took weeks.

Not so sure about Benny Hill. As an American, I couldn't see what the Brits found so funny about him. The keystone cop sequences of naked women chasing him, etc. and the silly situations he concocted (which required spoken language). Whereas Mr. Bean was truly universal situations and effectively no spoken words.

This calculation demonstrates how our current 64-bit FP operations are wide enough for almost all physical world needs. But to make the point even clearer: in one 2^-64th of a second, an object moving at the speed of light would not cross the diameter of a hydrogen atom.

c in 2^64 = 1.625 × 10-11 m/s; width of a hydrogen atom: 2.50 ^10-11 m

Was just going to say this. Although, it's not specific to Intel assembly. Many assembly languages use the syntax: move destination,origin

It's still there, at least on Amazon.com. I haven't checked other Amazon sites.

Looking at the excerpt on Amazon, the Acknowledgments part of the preface lists numerous people and concludes with: "This book would be as good as it is without your help." The author might want to fix that.

Once again, Betteridge's Law of Headlines applies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

Not sure I understand your point. There's nothing similar between the two except for women as the protagonists. There is no allegation of fraud with Sandberg, and I'm not seeing anyone (much less "everyone") saying about Sandberg that they "always knew."

Coming from today's world, sure. But in 1966, a language with a built-in database was a godsend and there were no standard language conventions to adopt (C was still several years away and only COBOL and Fortran were in wide use).

Most anything by Bob Nystrom. Some (all?) of his books are available for free on the Web. I recommend starting with Crafting Interpreters.

An excellent book that taught me a lot, but it first came out a long time ago. So, I'm very pleased to see it being updated. I will surely buy it and read it anew when it's finalized and printed.

> Then he found out she got engaged, and he made the rest of the song super difficult so she could never play it.

It is very unlikely that this story is anything more than a fanciful tale: The dedicatee of the piece is unknown; the work was found in papers long after Beethoven's death and was unknown before that. So, the prospect of there being someone who was told the story and wrote it down, even though it's recorded nowhere is close to nil. See the Wikipedia article for more details.

> I feel GitHub has taken an incredibly toxic turn with its emphasis on social features

This the first time I've seen this view of GitHub, and I'm struggling to figure out what specifically he's referring to.

All really good forums, in my experience, have attentive and firm moderators. (HN for example.) A few years ago, I moderated a developer forum (not on Reddit) and by posting clear rules and enforcing them consistently without being a jerk about it, the forum was indeed evolved into a useful place for conversations. But it took constant attention; and I think most Reddit moderators don't have the inclination to do that work day in and day out for the sake of the community--and so the quality progressively deteriorates.

I'm on the beta and agree with this assessment. It's feature-thin presently, and many features barely work. IMHO they released it too early to beta, by which I mean that it's difficult to provide useful feedback when so many basic features don't work.

Sure. But I don't have the time (nor realistically the ability) to review each one and determine which one is as effective at the ACLU in that representation.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. As you sensed, I supported their old mission and parts of their new mission.

However, I agree that if they view their new mission to be "selling themselves" to one side or the other, that would indeed detract from my willingness to continue supporting them long-term.

I'm a lifelong member of the ACLU. During all the years, I've disagreed with numerous things they have done and that they do presently, including this involvement in politics. However, there are few organizations doing the legal representation that they do on behalf of the poor and the marginalized, and for that I continue to support them. Insisting that an organization perfectly fit my personal preferences is a fool's errand. As with everything in life, I don't want to fall into the trap that perfect becomes the enemy of good. The ACLU ain't perfect, but it's certainly doing good work that IMHO merits my continued support.

You might be right that the active dissuasion was principally about the AGPL. However, less active dissuasion of the GPL is definitely Google policy. To wit, the Google link you point to says w.r.t. "restricted" licenses, which it defines as including all the GPL licenses, "Third-party software made available under one of these licenses must not be part of Google products that are delivered to outside customers."

> I'm also bothered by how you use "GPL/AGPL" repeatedly. The GPL is a standard copyright license, the AGPL is a EULA, and there's good reasons to distinguish them.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make. The very first line of the AGPL reads: "The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license". And from the FSF's own site: "The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement..." [0]

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

iText, probably the most widely used non-Adobe PDF library, uses the AGPL.

This post lacks historical context.

Google is the company that initiated the whole movement against the GPL and the AGPL. I was in touch with their OSS guru, Chris diBona at the time. Also, Bruno Lowagie's book "Entreprenerd" gives some more details about this initiative.

In short, Google were caught in violation of the GPL's copyleft terms and decided that they could not be caught in violation again on any of their principal technologies. So they started a very public campaign to strip the GPL from the company and because they are so reliant on OSS, to dissuade OSS developers from using the GPL (and by extension the AGPL). At the time, the GPL was, depending on survey the #1 or #2 license in OSS.

However, contrary to their public position, Google still uses GPL products widely inside the company. Linux and Java, for example, are both licensed under the GPL and used extensively at Google. And the parts of Android that are based on Linux are licensed under the GPL [0].

Note that all major companies that sell licenses to their OSS use the GPL or AGPL licenses. This is because the copyleft provision provides OSS developers with leverage ("Either open-source your app if you use our product for free or buy a license.") This is what Google does not want to do. None of the more permissive licenses give developers this leverage: under MIT, Apache, and the other licenses, the developer gives up the GPL's copyleft leverage.

Some companies have followed Google's lead and used scanning tools to eliminate GPL/AGPL code from their codebases. This is in part due to the copyleft provision and also to the so-called "viral clause" (if any part of the software is GPL/AGPL, the rest of the software it's part of must also be GPL/AGPL). This makes a lot of sense.

However, for developers of stand-alone tools, the GPL is a good option and much less disfavored in corporate contexts (as evidenced by the widespread use of Linux, Java, MySQL, etc. in corporations) and the GPL license provides OSS developers a possible monetary stream from companies that want to modify the tool without disclosing the source code.

Personal note: all of my OSS projects are released under permissive, non-GPL licenses because I'm not looking to make a business out of them and I want the widest possible distribution. Here, I simply want to provide context to the OP and clarify that it should be seen in the context of a long campaign by Google to dissuade OSS developers from the GPL/AGPL and to point out that those licenses have benefits for projects looking to pursue a business model based on licensing.

[0] https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses

YouTube Premium has been a great investment. I watch hours-long concerts without any interruptions now. And I can download the videos, which is another big benefit.

Interesting tool. It would be even better if it recognized shifted lines, like line 12 in the original is line 16 in the present version.

One tip that was indeed helpful in learning to ignore it, especially when I was new to tinnitus was: don't keep checking your tinnitus level. Once I stopped checking "Do I hear it now? Is it as loud?" I started minding/noticing it less.

So, if I intentionally have the same photo in two different directories, because I want to edit one while keeping the other as a fallback, GDrive has just killed off my failsafe. Do I understand this correctly?

If so, what more compelling reason could there be to go migrate right away to Dropbox (or a similar service)?

> Why is this so hard?

Well, for one, because it's an exceptionally rare English word that is singular in meaning but plural in its usage. In addition, there is an unrelated English word that is singular in both meaning and construction. That confusion would naturally arise seems almost pre-ordained.

> Good code doesn’t need documentation

It's amazing how this POV lives on, even in an essay which decries technical debt. Documentation and well-written code fill different roles with only some overlap. Your code can be beautifully written, but if I need to read the whole 500+ lines to figure out what you're doing, rather than read a single paragraph at the top of the file, you've burned through a lot of my time. Good documentation explains the why, code explains the how.

Thank you for having a front page that actually says what BGP is.

I'd include Backblaze