Kranar

16 ms·

181.
by Kranar 3y ago
One of the interesting takeaways of this simulation is that it isn't built upon an infinite amount of information. This simulation is a finite amount of information being used to describe an infinitely large simulation.
182.
by Kranar 3y ago
>Approximately 0% of parachute-wearing is based on validated research. But this is simply untrue and it undermines the rest of your point. The actual satirical statement is supposed to be about clinical trials (research studies involving
183.
by Kranar 3y ago
One major issue is that the biggest money maker for dentists, cleaning/scaling, is basically nothing more than a cosmetic procedure that has little to no medical value. Getting your teeth cleaned by a dentist is something many adults w
184.
by Kranar 3y ago
It's no more cheating than the fact that 1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... Despite the fact that you can never actually add up an infinite number of terms one by one, you can however, compute what the limit of the su
185.
by Kranar 3y ago
Billionaires have very little in savings relative to their wealth. Most billionaires have their wealth tied to ownership of a small number of companies, usually ones they founded.
186.
by Kranar 3y ago
I don't see what's strange about that, different functions grow at different rates. That's like saying it's strange that exp(x) is a billion for x = 21 while sqrt(x) is merely ~4 when x = 21. Go's complexity grows m
187.
by Kranar 3y ago
Those are all meaningful measures of complexity, but it's worth noting that all of them are a function of the number of legal positions (among other things as well).
188.
by Kranar 3y ago
Are you sure that the complexity of a game has absolutely nothing to do with the number of legal positions? I mean I am open to hear the justification for this, but I was fairly certain that all measures of game complexity are a function of
189.
by Kranar 3y ago
I agree most startups fail, but no they don't die a horrible death nor do the majority of them earn no money for their founders. Many founders could have made more money through traditional employment, but you'll find very few s
190.
by Kranar 3y ago
Why would you go from the proposal in the article that involved making a confusing expression like "bool > bool" a compiler error, to the absurd example of suggesting that C++'s syntax be changed to be identical to Rust? H
191.
by Kranar 3y ago
I agree, asking everyone else to pay the cost of writing error prone code because they refuse to adapt but yet feel entitled to use new compilers is a big red flag and poor technical decision making that offloads the cost on the rest of the
192.
by Kranar 3y ago
This is the sort of ideological thinking that holds back progress and it's something people have complained about in particular with the C++ standardization process. You always have these purists who think that because a solution doesn
193.
by Kranar 3y ago
Too late for that, I am in a decision making position at a quant firm with very strict engineering standards and I absolutely stand by my decision that businesses that write code that compares booleans together like that should not be in a
194.
by Kranar 3y ago
If a company won't update because it really needs to depend on whether one bool compares greater to another then by all means they can stick to using 20 year old version of C++. Other companies with modern engineering disciplines that
195.
by Kranar 3y ago
It's certainly possible to make an expression of the form "bool > bool" a compiler error and require that developers rewrite it as "x && !y"
196.
by Kranar 3y ago
On the contrary, it's the absurd claim that making "if (a != b > c)" a compiler error is somehow remotely comparable to changing C++ syntax so that it's the same language as Rust is what renders the entire conversatio
197.
by Kranar 3y ago
Saying it was fixed in two of the three C++ standard libraries is irrelevant, the language standard itself specifies that the behavior is undefined. This would be like saying C++ the language fixed buffer overflows because GCC added bounds
198.
by Kranar 3y ago
From when I was reading the proposal, the idea is that until a C extension is loaded, you can assume that there are no other threads. Then when a module is loaded, by default you assume that it uses threads but modules that are thread free
199.
by Kranar 3y ago
While Ken Thompson never used the word attack, he certainly didn't have a positive opinion of the language or of Bjarne Stroustrup either in terms of his technical contributions or his handling of C++ adoption: https://gigam
200.
by Kranar 3y ago
Not quite sure what your comment means exactly or how it implies what I said is incorrect. At any rate, test_asyncio contains a lot of tests that involve threads and specifically thread safety between coroutines and those tests fail. As far
201.
by Kranar 3y ago
With this particular release, yes it will segfault. But down the road what you state is correct, this is just a first step towards that goal.
202.
by Kranar 3y ago
They don't benefit much from a lack of GIL, perhaps a small reduction in overhead. This feature is a first step towards being able to disable the GIL completely. It is intended to be implemented in a very conservative manner, bit by bi
203.
by Kranar 3y ago
Well this release will break any code that uses threads. The goal of this particular release is to work for thread-free programs.
204.
by Kranar 3y ago
Panics are not quite the same as an abort in Rust. Most notably a panic can be caught and execution can resume so as to gracefully terminate the application, but an abort is an immediate termination, a go to jail do not pass go kind of situ
205.
by Kranar 3y ago
Safe Rust has no undefined behavior. Undefined behavior does not mean no crashing, it means that the semantics of the program are undefined. Rust's semantics are to abort on a stack overflow. A language like C or C++ have no such seman
206.
by Kranar 3y ago
Rust performs a runtime check to protect against out of bounds array accesses. In some cases those checks can be optimized out if the compiler can prove it's not needed.
207.
by Kranar 3y ago
This is bogus and doesn't even make sense. That would mean that any publicly traded company that didn't issue a dividend didn't make a profit which no one believes. Do you really want to claim that Google has never made any p
208.
by Kranar 3y ago
Positive cash flow and profit are almost synonyms although there can be subtleties they are not relevant to this discussion. The parent comment is making a common mistake that non-profits can not make profits, that is false. Non-profits can
209.
by Kranar 3y ago
Absolutely, Mozilla is another relevant example where the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit that owns the Mozilla Corporation, which is for-profit. Furthermore many non-profits also buy shares of for-profit corporations, for example the Ga
210.
by Kranar 3y ago
The statement of claims is full of damages. It claims that Musk donated 44 million dollars on the basis of specific claims made by the plaintiffs as well as the leasing of office space and some other contributions Musk made.

More ›