JadeNB

40 ms·

571.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> You're making a mistake if you're thinking like that. Applying an operation that generally works on single values over a list of values automatically is an incredibly powerful technique. Indeed, the defining technique of arra
572.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> The detecting of increments has been in Perl for ages so that's not new. But this is detecting that the increment is multiplicative, rather than additive. It might seem like a natural next step, but, for example, I somewhat suspe
573.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> It is absolutely mindbending to me that all of this language development has happened on top of Perl, of all things. Why "of all things?" The Perl philosophy of TIMTOWTDI, and Wall's interest in human-language constructs
574.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> It would be fantastic to have this as an extension for us, Firefox users. I hope someone makes one someday. If there's some easy way to figure out where that id parameter in the results page comes from (I assume some simple hash o
575.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> But you can still draw the concepts of a cross section, right? I'm not sure what that means, but my inability to draw is astounding.
576.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> For everything you propose to add, you would then also need to propose something to remove. There are surely lots of features the proposer would be willing to remove (although one also has to define how to count the number of feature
577.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> We can visualize 3D objects, and therefore can draw 2D cross-sections of 3D objects relatively well, and relatively easily. Many people can draw cross-sections reasonably well, but I can't. Nonetheless, I believe that I can visua
578.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> Because humans can't visualize more than 3 dimensions. It's awfully hard to prove that real-world things are impossible, especially if there's no objective measurement of whether they've been achieved. (For example
579.
by JadeNB 2y ago
(The initial version of this comment missed the point of your question; sorry.) The author says: > We also store pairs as the pair type (Key-Value), instead of two separate values. This makes easy to serialize a dictionary into a list of
580.
by JadeNB 2y ago
I think this may fall (conceptually) under the range operators.
581.
by JadeNB 2y ago
I don't understand why `a += b` is called binary (I agree!) but `a f= b` would be called ternary. I guess it's thinking of `f` as one of the arguments?
582.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.” Your parent didn't say "those two cas
583.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> So how about the shifting alliances and goals of Squid Game ? I couldn't comment, since I haven't seen it, but I think the mandate of fairness makes sense even in the presence of shifting goals, and probably governs the exten
584.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> So, tit-for-tat? That's a reasonable reading, but I think that there is a difference between competition and punishment. In the heat of the competition, I think I am comfortable with the idea that it is permissible to meet the fi
585.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> War crimes have entered the chat. Good point, but I believe war crimes mainly come when you substitute ‘a people’ for ‘a person’ in: > "Unfair" is in there. If you are competing against a person who will pull out all the s
586.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> I won't laugh at the pet bereavement leave request, but I most certainly will laugh at the ask for unscented cleaning products. What's the point then? The point of cleaning products is to clean, which can be done perfectly we
587.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> If you insist on following an honor code while competing against people who are ready to take an unfair advantage of you, you lose. "Unfair" is in there. If you are competing against a person who will pull out all the stops a
588.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> "No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community." That's great, but I wonder why not just: > "No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair adva
589.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> I'm pretty sure that capacitive touch sensing is just cheaper than physical interfaces, it's more to do with corner cutting than being slick. All you need to create a capsense "button" is some traces on a PCB, they&
590.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> Choose the right button for the job. I think that the problem comes with what the article mentions in the first paragraph—there are some places where UI might evolve with time, but my kitchen appliances, my washing machine, and much of
591.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> home appliances like stoves and washing machines are returning to knobs It can't come a bit too soon. My oven has buttons that aren't actually raised from their surroundings, and presses are registered via some sort of presu
592.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> Ah yes, I even used to teach this actually. Sorry for the understatement xD. No worries! Mainly I was just pleased with myself for remembering the pumping lemma, and kind of wished that I knew how to contact my professor (from back in
593.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> So your question made no sense. Hope that helps. I think that is uncharitable. The question ("Did you choose the legacy C trigraphs over || for aesthetic purposes?") makes perfect sense to me. I think context makes it reaso
594.
by JadeNB 2y ago
As of Perl 5.12, `use`ing a version (necessary to ensure availability of some of the newer features) automatically implies `use strict`. https://perldoc.perl.org/strict#HISTORY
595.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> What's a bit odd is that the interpreter allows you to string interpolate any expression when constructing the array reference inside the string. Why? Surely it is easier for both the language and the programmer to have a rule fo
596.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> Everything is easy once you know how. I think that this is definitely not true. There are lots of things where an "aha!" moment makes things appear conceptually much simpler after you've internalized the framework, but
597.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> Because recognizing a prime number using an actual regular expression would prove that prime numbers form a regular language, which would be an incredible result. It would be literally incredible, because the pumping lemma shows that i
598.
by JadeNB 2y ago
Ah, thanks. Then, since "NP-hard" and "NP-complete" are different, I would expect "weakly NP-hard" and "weakly NP-complete" to be different; but, at least according to Wikipedia, they are synonymous.
599.
by JadeNB 2y ago
Indeed, the parent already gives one: flip_case(flip_case("ﬀ")) = "ff". (Since it's hard to tell with what I guess is default ligature formation, at least in my browser, the first is an 'ﬀ' ligature and th
600.
by JadeNB 2y ago
> weakly NP-hard What does this mean?

More ›