Quekid5

22 ms·

271.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Finally something useful to be gained from this whole thread. That was a TIL for me as well.
272.
by Quekid5 3y ago
I think it's probably just the fact that the IPv4 stack has just received a lot more hardening because it's deployed everywhere (by necessity)... and IPv4 has had a 15+ years lead over IPv6 on that whole hardening thing because it
273.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Have fun in the Turing Tarpit.
274.
by Quekid5 3y ago
... and entirely irrelevant when talking about function composition.
275.
by Quekid5 3y ago
I think you can drop the "often". Law must almost by definition be flexible because there are so many things in life that aren't as simple 'yes' or 'no'.
276.
by Quekid5 3y ago
No worries!
277.
by Quekid5 3y ago
In the waiting room they usually don't shout out "Geoff, who's here for the cock wart, the doctor will see you now"... they just say "Geoff, the doctor will see you now." Btw, my name's not Geoff. (Just to
278.
by Quekid5 3y ago
It really should be specified to specifically summon nasal demons, IMO.
279.
by Quekid5 3y ago
True, but that doesn't address (heh) the briefly-goes-out-of-bounds-and-then-in-bounds scenario. Again, I'm not 100% that that's technically UB, but I think so? (It would have be to be for very esoteric addressing modes, mayb
280.
by Quekid5 3y ago
A fair point, but then you might as well just administer a simpler placebo without the woo :). In the case of homeopathy that would be asking people to just drink a little water. Anyway... IIRC the current consensus is that the "more
281.
by Quekid5 3y ago
I find this good if it's really critical to avoid any ambiguity... but I have to admit I still prefer the ISO format because it sorts lexicographically. (But this is mostly for untyped stuff like file names, etc.)
282.
by Quekid5 3y ago
I understand your point, but it's unlikely that there's going to be new constructors added to Boolean :) EDIT: Oh, actually, nevermind. After reading more closely, I do agree that it might be reduced a bit too much!
283.
by Quekid5 3y ago
> Not sure that homeopathy, acupunctue, etc. These have been tested and... surprise(!), never perform better than placebo. The best than can be said about them is that at least they aren't actively damaging unless they stop the affl
284.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Quite. Thankfully the practice of just randomly shelling out to 'random' programs (like the core tools) has been stemmed somewhat, so perhaps we're mostly safe from RCE via that vector. Downloaded files might still be a vecto
285.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Agreed, but even that is vulnerable to software bugs around snapshotting itself.
286.
by Quekid5 3y ago
I don't think you fully read the post I was replying to. I was just saying that that poster's argument against changing the sorting algorithm was misguided. Quote: > will be reviewed and tested by 200 people before it reaches p
287.
by Quekid5 3y ago
This is about changing the sorting algoritm. No snark needed. It should be trivial to add a test for the current algorithm (whenever it was introduced) and to replace it afterwards. Heck, even keep running both for bisimulation testing.
288.
by Quekid5 3y ago
The term Boxing is used in Java. (JVM languages really.)
289.
by Quekid5 3y ago
If your testing infrastructure is so anemic that a sorting algorithm (of all things) is hard to subject to e.g. property-based/fuzzing tests then it'd probably be worth it to expand that before doing anything else. I dunno wha
290.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Java isn't mainstream? Granted, Java has 'references' instead of pointers, but they're close enough that the concept of boxing is basically the same.
291.
by Quekid5 3y ago
I think I would advise against a direct mirroring -- instead, I'd do sync-every-24-hours or something similar. Both schemes are vulnerable to the (admittedly rarer) errors where both drives fail simultaneously (e.g. mobo fried them) or
292.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Note the "codata" and also note that "main" is marked as "partial". Only the total subset of Idris is non-TC. Note also the use of Fuel -- this is to provide "fuel" for the computation, but it's
293.
by Quekid5 3y ago
The MINIMUM baseline is probably somewhere around ASAN/UBSAN/etc. and those aren't exactly cheap... and they don't even promise to catch all the problems. The problem is that almost every single little thing you can do
294.
by Quekid5 3y ago
The Pac-Man Complete bit is tongue-in-cheek. It's an observation that TC is rarely (if ever) actually needed in practice. (This might sound strange to people unfamiliar with dependently typed langs, but infinite streams etc., servers
295.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Think "da Vinci". It's not exactly the same, but similar enough.
296.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Is there some documentation on exactly how to do this? I've been curious about this in the past, but my search-fu is failing me...
297.
by Quekid5 3y ago
> But to be honest Unicode in itself is probably the biggest SNAFU of our entire field. Explain. EDIT: Oh! I construed this as a negative sentiment about Unicode, but perhaps it was just: "Yeah, it's complicated because languag
298.
by Quekid5 3y ago
As someone from a country with ludicrously (needlessly) complicated tax law: Unless you have a really complicated situation, you just get a pre-calculated form on a government site you basically just have to look at and approve. That covers
299.
by Quekid5 3y ago
That only works up to one checked exception type, because Java doesn't have anonymous union types. It really is a lose-lose unless Java grows a more powerful system around this.
300.
by Quekid5 3y ago
The problem is that if some code you call throws a checked exception (InterruptedException being an extremely common culprit) then you must wrap... and suddently nobody calling YOUR code can catch that InterruptedException reliably be

More ›