drt1245

4 ms·

1.
by drt1245 6y ago
Recent versions of Debian require a 686. https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.en.html#...
2.
by drt1245 9y ago
Additionally, he keeps talking about dereferencing the pointer, which I don't think is right. The pointer never gets deferenced in the code shown. I'm not an x86 guru, but I think that "movq ptr(%rip), %rsi" is different
3.
by drt1245 9y ago
>Let's assume that when a river gets redirected, a scientist goes and investigates it This is a faulty assumption and is what leads to the wrong conclusion. The probability of 0.5% is for a randomly selected river. That is, if you
4.
by drt1245 9y ago
I think a better analogy is that it's like having many pairs of dice, and rolling each pair in turn until you get a roll of 12. Then concluding "this particular pair of dice must be loaded". Presumably, the researchers did no
5.
by drt1245 12y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=china+income+inequality If that was the case, China's growth would be stagnating as well. Not everything is caused by income inequality.
6.
by drt1245 15y ago
Where 1 <= x <= 4: f(x) = (x-1)/9 + 1, maps bijectively from [1,4] to [1,4/3] g(x) = (x-1)/9 + 4/3, maps bijectively from [1,4] to [4/3,5/3] h(x) = (x-1)/9 + 5/3 maps bijectively from [1,4] to [5/3,2] Therefore, [1,2] must contain t
7.
by drt1245 15y ago
> The argument "Addition breaks" proves just as well that zero "isn't a number", since it breaks division rather badly. Mathematically, numbers (be it natural, rational, real, or complex) are defined as a field. Fields (or, more accurat
8.
by drt1245 15y ago
Not only does there exist a bijective mapping between [1,2] and [1,4], there exists infinite different bijective mappings between a subset of [1,2] and [1,4]. i.e.: One could map bijectively from [1,1.5] to [1,4] and map bijectively from [1
9.
by drt1245 15y ago
The problem is a loss of verbosity. The next person looking at the code isn't necessarily going to know how MAX is defined, and saving 1 line of code isn't worth making it less clear. That said, for me, your code would be clear, as not bein
10.
by drt1245 15y ago
int a = f(); if (a < 0) a = 0; has been replaced with const int a = MAX(0,f()); I believe the latter will generally result in 2 calls to f() (unless it returns less than zero), which could cause undesired behavior or just