antics

17 ms·

241.
by antics 12y ago
---Author here--- It wasn't that hard. It took us about 30 minutes (thanks largely to the fact that Bart is a genius.) Besides, that's not actually the source of this DLL. We are on .NET native, and for that matter, a bleeding-edg
242.
by antics 12y ago
---Author here--- I work at MS, and we're using a slightly exotic version of this DLL. Please pardon the differences. :)
243.
by antics 12y ago
---Author here--- We actually chose the most expedient route. The reason is, the source you link to is not actually the source of the DLL we were working with. That particular file is very similar, but the rest of the repot is very much dif
244.
by antics 12y ago
---Author here--- Yeah, I've never tried, but I have a copy of the actual Windows source tree, so I'm guessing the answer is yes.
245.
by antics 12y ago
---Author here--- AWESOME TIP, stoked to try it out, thanks!
246.
by antics 12y ago
---Author here--- I should disclose that I actually work for Microsoft, and still chose the hard way. Fuck the police!
247.
I found a bug in the .NET framework and fixed it by hand-altering the DLL(blog.nullspace.io)
332 points by antics 12y ago|118 comments
248.
by antics 12y ago
The authors are pretty conscientious about basing the book on tech that's mostly here to stay. For example, camlp4 is not included because it's on it's way out. So, there's no way to say for sure, but I think there'
249.
by antics 12y ago
Yeah, I agree, I was probably too hard on LYAH. But, even if my goals didn't match your goals, I am hoping that the information I am giving you is sort of useful either way. The emphasis is really on the reasoning, rather than the conc
250.
by antics 12y ago
(Author here) I think it's totally fair. The whole reason I wrote this post is to help people decide which resources to not use . I love LYAH but I don't care who it was written for. I wanted people to know, specifically, what th
251.
by antics 12y ago
(Author here) I love Haskell. Love it to death. I see RWO as a justification of OCaml's language choices from the perspective of system deployment. It gives you a good start on the knowledge you'd need to push an OCaml system into
252.
by antics 12y ago
Yeah, and you can't have that discussion without understanding why it works for HS. By ignoring this context, the parent comment, and your comment here, debate a position that was never posited at all. In some sense you are debating yo
253.
by antics 12y ago
I was in the Summer 2013 batch. Since this is the top-voted comment, let me be emphatic. The assumptions the parent comment makes about the HS experience bear no resemblance to reality. A good example is the consistent theme in this thread
254.
by antics 12y ago
I was in the Summer 2013 batch. There is no hard-and-fast rule for figuring out what is and is not a well-actually, but the biggest factors (at least for me) are (1) did it derail the conversation, (2) did my correcting someone make it less
255.
by antics 12y ago
Because the trick Knuth pulls is to express this intuition without appealing to the definition of probability. It's quite clever.
256.
by antics 12y ago
So, the excerpt here is chapter 3, section 1. The actual definition happens in chapter 3 section 5 ("What Is a Random Sequence?"). I have the book at home, though, so I can't quote it here. Sorry. But the intuition is, if you
257.
by antics 12y ago
You are 100% mistaken that this implies we had a good definition of random sequences before Knuth. In the article you link, they discuss the uniform distribution, but any distribution (and the modern notion of probability in general) absolu
258.
by antics 12y ago
When you step back to think about it, a huge amount of CS theory papers rely on this hand-wavy definition of "randomness" to prove something. Oddly, though, if you actually press a CS theory person for a mathematical definition
259.
by antics 12y ago
I'm the author of the post -- that's good to know, thanks! :) I know embarrassingly little about filesystems. I'm glad you pointed this out. EDIT: though, I'd point out that if you really wanted to recover the file you s
260.
by antics 13y ago
Arrrrgh, thanks for pointing it out. I don't use Firefox, and I don't know a damn thing about web programming.
261.
by antics 13y ago
A couple months ago, I decided to write a very short tutorial/introduction to the program `telnet`. I ended up deciding to use the <blink> tag to make a cursor that blinks similar to how it blinks in the terminal. Hilariously, I
262.
by antics 13y ago
Let's recap a bit. You said there wasn't any talent. I said that's not true, and there talented people who have good reasons for staying. You now say that the culture sucks and the talented people who stay are there because o
263.
by antics 13y ago
I'll be honest, this is a pretty despicable comment, Ryan. The fact that you personally don't like the culture at Yahoo certainly does not mean that everyone who is talented also dislikes the culture at Yahoo. For example, I know
264.
by antics 13y ago
I'll see your flooding river and raise you The Great Molasses Flood of Boston: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Molasses_Disaster 21 dead. 150 injured. Had they done their calculus/physics homework prope
265.
by antics 13y ago
Sure, but how do you deal with the long tail? Flappy Bird is not an app that would have surfaced until it was well on its way to becoming what it is today (or was yesterday, I guess).
266.
by antics 13y ago
What's interesting about a by-the-numbers account of Flappy Bird's success is how starkly apparent the weaknesses of the app store model of surfacing and distributing apps seem to be in retrospect. Think about it: the app store or
267.
by antics 13y ago
I don't know enough about The Mismeasure of Man to say whether it's correct or not, but Steven Jay Gould is about as eminent a biologist as there has ever been. The allegation that he is a "noted fraud and liar" is a p
268.
by antics 13y ago
> all that's happened is another bug Yes, all that's happened is a bug that completely halted trading at a financial service managing millions and millions of dollars worth of assets. At every point in the sad journey of Mt
269.
by antics 13y ago
Sure, it is certainly debatable that "rosy" was the right choice of words here (it probably was a bit bombastic). But unless your plan is to claim that it is impossible to be optimistic about this situation (which is more or less
270.
by antics 13y ago
Thanks for the spirited reply, Zaid, but I never said I disagree with any of these points. I'm responding specifically to the ridiculous notion that profit could not possibly be in the future of a post-IPO Twitter, not this stuff abo

More ›