cbsmith

61 ms·

961.
by cbsmith 4y ago
> Everyone feels safer in their big SUV. In reality it's just an arms race, and we're all losing. I'm not sure, absent secondary effects, wearing a helmet makes cycling more dangerous for other cyclists the way that drivin
962.
by cbsmith 4y ago
Indeed.
963.
by cbsmith 4y ago
They added a whole new keyword just to support it. Just because C++ templates are Turing complete doesn't mean new features don't count as new features.
964.
by cbsmith 4y ago
I mean, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Templates have evolved a great deal over time, and continue to do so (C++20 added Concepts).
965.
by cbsmith 4y ago
Yeah, UFCS remains illusive, but tantalizingly close. It's pretty easy to make ``` struct foo { void bar(); } bar(foo* i) { assert(i != nullptr); i->bar(); } ``` work, but there's enough syntactic complexity in the language
966.
by cbsmith 4y ago
Yup. Turns out, I was wrong.
967.
by cbsmith 4y ago
I stand corrected.
968.
by cbsmith 4y ago
> The v-table function generated if the method is moved inside the class/struct winds up being identical. Unless you add some additional semantics/keywords, it's not going to create a vtable. > Dunno what it is, some ki
969.
by cbsmith 4y ago
So that doesn't implicitly mark all functions as constexpr. It implicitly marks inline functions as constexpr. It weakens your point a tad, but I see now what you are getting at.
970.
by cbsmith 4y ago
How so? constexpr doesn't guarantee that an expression is evaluated at compile time, but it does guarantee that it could be.
971.
by cbsmith 4y ago
I can't see how constexpr could be used for what constinit does. Indeed, there's a part of me that thinks constinit is kind of a poorly chosen name/keyword.
972.
by cbsmith 4y ago
I see -fconstexpr-depth, -fconstexpr-cache-depth, -fconsexpr-fp-except, -fconstexpr-loop-limit, and -fconstexpr-ops-limit, but not -fconstexpr: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/C_002b_002b-Di...
973.
by cbsmith 4y ago
I mean, if you change the name to "BufferPool::get_record" and you use an implicit this pointer instead of your "pool" argument, you have a method. It seems like you're fighting the paradigm more than you need to.
974.
by cbsmith 4y ago
Keep in mind that CEO pay has grown 37% more than the stock market (which would be the companies they are managing). In 1978 GE had 330,000 employees. In 2022 Apple has 164,000 employees, about half of which are in the US. So if you're
975.
by cbsmith 4y ago
> It's Math 101. CEOs compensation is typically tied to Market Caps of firms, while employees have fixed/sticky wages. It NOT Math 101. You're making some assertions that really don't stand up to even basic Econ 101 t
976.
by cbsmith 4y ago
> I see a lot of revolution and socialism vs capitalism comments here, but isn't this a not surprising finding given corporate consolidation and increase in CEO:total worker ratio? Sure, I guess that makes sense, except... given wh
977.
by cbsmith 4y ago
Yet oddly, it isn't seen as a much stronger signal...
978.
by cbsmith 4y ago
As opposed to employees, where companies think their employees are average or below average?
979.
by cbsmith 4y ago
> Musk, Jobs, Bezos, Nadella have demonstrably added Trillions of Dollars of value to their firms. So, it make sense to award a %age of value they create Unlike CEO's of yore who contributed a tenth of the value to their companies?
980.
by cbsmith 4y ago
"Capital allocators are always paid top dollar." That seems to be unrelated to the subject matter. I could just as easily say, "senior employees are always paid top dollar over junior employees". Presumably, "capita
981.
by cbsmith 4y ago
> Apple is fundamentally transforming into an advertising company. The difference between them and ad companies such as Google is that, with Apple, advertising is baked into almost every single product. It's nice to think this is pa
982.
by cbsmith 4y ago
Autocorrect shames me. "Wasn't the F-22 designed for narrower scenarios, and so part of the problem is we'd never need as many?"
983.
by cbsmith 4y ago
Want the F-22 designed for narrower scenarios, and so part of the other is we'd never need as many?
984.
by cbsmith 4y ago
To the extent it is sunk cost fallacy, you've got a similar problem when comparing it against prior aircraft. Is argue this is an apples to apples comparison.
985.
by cbsmith 4y ago
Little known secret: Ticketmaster has an auction system for selling tickets (I believe it has actually built more than one). No one uses it.
986.
by cbsmith 4y ago
My name is Chris Smith. Solve that.
987.
by cbsmith 4y ago
> So the second thing we need is transparent pricing. There should be absolutely no fee sharing between Ticketmaster and artists because that's what happens now. Oh, it's not just artists who share in the fees. There's a b
988.
by cbsmith 4y ago
It seems odd to me that they decision was to not solve it this way, but not how it will be solved going forward. Like, doesn't that effectively make everything more complicated/difficult?
989.
by cbsmith 4y ago
At least at this point, the link to the nature article is the #2 comment on this article...
990.
by cbsmith 4y ago
> Virtue signaling. A loaded term, yes. But it is exactly why these discussions go off the rails. Nutritional 'science' doesn't even really exist, so you can always find something out there that sounds very objective and i

More ›