ben509

45 ms·

421.
by ben509 7y ago
If you sift through enough settings panels and preferences dialogs, you should see everything going back to DOS widgets in there.
422.
by ben509 7y ago
Beyond having good testing, don't try to write it to be easy to change, write it to be good code. You should try to express problems elegantly, and that will help make some changes easy. That's nice when that happens, and it does
423.
by ben509 7y ago
> Even more importantly, no one has ever proposed a consistent, non-reductionist theory of nature It seems the point of non-reductionism is that you can't propose such a theory. For instance, if we were in a simulation that decides
424.
by ben509 7y ago
Working a similar number of years in various corporate jobs, I haven't seen too much of that, but it does happen. I'm probably my harshest critic when I'm looking at code I wrote years ago. Or maybe someone is cursing me afte
425.
by ben509 7y ago
The fugly state in objects is tricky. One way to look at a class is to treat it as a kind of coroutine. Consider some pseudocode: class Stats sum Num = 0 sum_squared Num = 0 count Num = 0 acceptNum(x)
426.
by ben509 7y ago
Probably related to why the database has millions and millions of rows in the first place. Maybe someone read about denormalization in "Super Webscale SQL!" and blew up a trivial database. Or they're hoovering up vast quantit
427.
by ben509 7y ago
> Whatever defines "large" isn't that interesting Some people get excited about huge datasets; I don't get it myself, but "big data" is a successful buzzword because it pushes people's buttons.
428.
by ben509 7y ago
It wouldn't be turing complete if you simply load the application into ROM and restrict the CPU from executing pages in RAM. You can implement the entire relational model with about 8 operators and graph transformations, mostly distrib
429.
by ben509 7y ago
Procedural SQL definitely does, but see my response to myself.
430.
by ben509 7y ago
The goal here is to find a criteria under which you can require that manufacturers open up general purpose systems. And the proposal is that a system that is Turing complete is also general purpose. The relational model is hugely expressive
431.
by ben509 7y ago
If they did their job, I'll give them the "you did your job" 5 stars. Even if the company has systemic problems, they still need to pay bills as long as they still have the job. Finding another company is a smart option. I&#x
432.
by ben509 7y ago
I think you're miseducating your customers. If creds leak, rotate those creds. Then, you check your logs to make sure there was no intrusion. "Rotate the creds" gives the absolute best guarantee that they're useless. Thr
433.
by ben509 7y ago
Seems like you'd want screens to help people with stuff, so they could double for scanning coupons. The problem with checkouts isn't the scanning, it's that they have to create a physical chokepoint.
434.
by ben509 7y ago
Yelling at people "wash your filthy hands" isn't authoritarian. Social opprobrium is how a free society regulates itself: it's the authority of your peers rather than the authority of superiors.
435.
by ben509 7y ago
> Because there is no such countries until someone can prove otherwise (which will not happen because they don't exist). It won't happen because you'll shift the goal posts. A common dodge is that they're state social
436.
by ben509 7y ago
Everyone who has ratings does it. I used to rate 3 = professional and fully acceptable until I got a call from Dell asking what they had done wrong, and then from Honda. I realized ratings are all inflated and staff are effectively penalize
437.
by ben509 7y ago
> I'm not selling them at a loss, if I can't get what I paid for them it means they are by definition worth less. You have taken a loss. No one who holds the stock is taking a loss. That's why gains and losses can be &quot
438.
by ben509 7y ago
I think folds and such started in functional languages, were then adopted by imperative languages, which then made them prettier as comprehensions, which then made their way back into functional languages. But it could be that both features
439.
by ben509 7y ago
"X is not a good look" should be left in the echo chambers of Twitter. It comes across as smug, because you assume you're an authority on what a "good look" is, that is, what the correct thinking is. But you're
440.
by ben509 7y ago
And by that standard, the avionics controller for a missile is general purpose.
441.
by ben509 7y ago
That means a (properly) relational DBMS can be completely locked down because the relational model is not Turing complete.
442.
by ben509 7y ago
We also have to do that to decode speech. You can simulate the way people do it with a hidden Markov model.
443.
by ben509 7y ago
That's a valid point. Enterprise software can be continually buggy and broken and still be commercially viable. So that things are silently wrong is not a disaster as much as it is a dumpster fire that corporations are happy to shovel
444.
by ben509 7y ago
If it's qualified as a "serious definition," they're setting up a No True Scotsman argument.
445.
by ben509 7y ago
In fairness to Windows and Java, they weren't wrong. There was no UTF-16, rather, UCS-2 was the accepted standard because the plan for Unicode was to encompass languages in use, not emojis and historical langauges. That changed and we&
446.
by ben509 7y ago
Yeah, perl borrows backticks from bash[3], so it's giving you syntax to do it directly, and it's long had strong support for opening a process using a very intuitive syntax. Python's subprocess module works quite well, but ge
447.
by ben509 7y ago
Perl's big win for one-liners is braces syntax. Interestingly, there are already projects to add braces syntax[1]. Two of the three Perl features are also Python features, namely -m to run a module and -c to run code on the command lin
448.
by ben509 7y ago
The author should have priced out a $50 order as well. Most delivery only makes sense if you're buying a big meal, because the marginal cost of delivering a second pizza is almost zero. Of course, this is also why tipping by percent is
449.
by ben509 7y ago
Thanks, I didn't mean to imply Getty's lawyers could do it ethically.
450.
by ben509 7y ago
These days, though, you can have it both ways with a Jupyter notebook or something similar. It's literate, in that you can keep thoughts and discussion in markdown cells, and you can neatly combine computations in computation cells.

More ›