Quekid5

49 ms·

631.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Absolutely. I think we in the IT community should really strive to be better at nuance when discussing these things. I mean, as much as I've seen "Haskell sucks" posts, I've also seen quite a lot of "Haskell solves
632.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I think it's worth pointing out that your values[0] may not align with Haskell's values. That's absolutely fine, but it doesn't mean that Haskell is "bad" in some objective sense. AFAICT, most of your 'com
633.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> It's a research vehicle. Well, it's also one that happens to make people lots and lots of money. Standard Chartered, for example, uses it extensively to earn lots of money. Facebook uses it for spam filtering logic. Niche, p
634.
by Quekid5 6y ago
You can, but it's... a bit messy unless you're using Nix as the build platform. Hopefully there will be a WASM backend for GHC... I mean, it's bound to happen right? :) If you want statically checked types, I'd probably
635.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Huh, that's interesting. Still... the proposal by the poster I replied to basically amounts to something close enough to general AI so as to be world-changing stuff, IMO. :)
636.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> Can't you fix wallhacks by just having the server not send the position of things that the client doesn't have line-of-sight to? No, at least not for real-time games. Latency compensation means that the client needs more data
637.
by Quekid5 6y ago
This is the perpetual problem isn't it? Even if it could evade/avoid a sudden problem (a child running into the street, etc., as you mention)... what if it cannot avoid disaster and has to choose between two disastrous outcomes.
638.
by Quekid5 6y ago
ZFS is also extremely well designed at a system level... which is not the impression I get from BtrFS. (Disclaimer: I have not bothered looking at BtrFS for years because ZFS has handled everything I've thrown at it very admirably. I
639.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I have no insider knowledge, but I'm going to guess that they even crawl using actual Chrome browsers once in a while... and penalize deviations from what you serve to the GoogleBot... and also factor in response times for either. I do
640.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> You simply can't just say these don't matter any more, I think what you're missing is that... nobody in this thread is saying that.
641.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I think you missed my point. If you and/or your organization can keep up with all of that... then good for you. That's not the reality for most of the world. And in "world", I include most IT organizations, btw. EDIT: Bt
642.
by Quekid5 6y ago
That'll probably just get you penalized by Google Search... This whole AMP mess just shows how insidiously evil a HugeCorp can be through sheer system complexity. Was it intentional? Well, I guess court cases will show that, but sheesh
643.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Indeed, and this finding could at the very least be said to have some plausible underlying (perhaps indirect) causation.
644.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> If you run containers anyway, wouldn't you want the host running those containers to remain stable and predictable? For this use, I'd say one should use a disto focused only on running containers. Everything else is overkill
645.
by Quekid5 6y ago
"Observ(er|vation)" is really one of the worst terms ever in this area. It really is just about the experimenter (plus apparatus) becoming entangled with the experiment -- or entering into a superposition with it, if you will. Tha
646.
by Quekid5 6y ago
That's not at all what I'm suggesting. My point is merely that you cannot derive an ought from an is . (I suspect most of us agree about what is , but we probably agree a lot less about what ought to be.) I'm suggesting
647.
by Quekid5 6y ago
True, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing or that it shouldn't be resisted.
648.
by Quekid5 6y ago
No worries :).
649.
by Quekid5 6y ago
"We"? I think a lot of the Scandiwegian countries already decided that rehabilitation is the best course. You may agree/disagree with that, I'm just pointing out that the discussion has been had (and is essentially over)
650.
by Quekid5 6y ago
At risk of being a bit trite and derivative... [Management] "Consulting Firm" are the key words here.
651.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Very nice -- well done. Must break away now lest I be trapped for the next two days. :)
652.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Seems very reminiscent of early java bytecode obfuscators.
653.
by Quekid5 6y ago
That's why I added the "afford it" bit.
654.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> But even in Haskell, isn't "Cabal hell" a thing? No. Just use stack + Stackage and you have a huge set of packages which are mutually compatible. (You can also use cabal-install with a Stackage snapshot, I think. Not sur
655.
by Quekid5 6y ago
There have been cases in the UK, I believe, where a couple picked up a discarded winning lottery ticket and tried to claim it. I think they got a suspended sentence, at least. IIRC, video surveillance showed that it wasn't them who had
656.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Yes, stacked reviews absolutely are a game-changer for a sane commit history and iterating patches over a few rounds of review.
657.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Indeed, it shouldn't be a first line of defense (nulling + an assert seems reasonable, fwiw), and accessing a nulled out pointer is just as UB as any other UB. It's probably more likely to crash immediately in practice , but it&#
658.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> I was thinking lottery tickets for food, but probably not that worthwhile. Also, turning in a lottery ticket you didn't actually purchase may be considered fraud. (Obviously depends on location.)
659.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I mean... if you're fixing a broken API, you're going to have to bite the bullet either way -- papering over it isn't going to fix anything... it just hides the problems. With a type system which understands effects, at lea
660.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Yes, you do... which is as it should be. What else would you expect? If a function needs capability X then it must require that capability. Simple as that.

More ›