foxfluff

39 ms·

331.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> Targeted ads are not the same as tracked ads. Shoe HN posts are targeted ads. I don't believe that's considered targeted advertising under the DSA. If you're not dynamically selecting an ad to display based on data you
332.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> A well targeted ad can be a net positive to my life. Have you ever bought anything based on a targeted ad? I think targeted ads are a waste of my time, the advertiser's time, everyone's time. Because despite all the effort,
333.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> “testserver4.mycorp.example” (no trailing dot) is not fully-qualified and as such could refer to any number of things of differing identities, e.g. “testserver4.mycorp.example.atthomenetwork.com”. Whether a domain is fully qualified de
334.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> If you need to know exactly which implementation is being used in a particular context then maybe you shouldn't be using an interface, but should be using the concrete type? Look again at the original comment by dandotway. It&#x2
335.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> This entire article can be summarised as "compile time stuff should use the same language as run time". I think the message is more nuanced than that (otherwise wouldn't lisp with its homoiconicity and compile time macro
336.
by foxfluff 5y ago
How is formatted printing related in any way to the internal representation of strings? printf is what you call when you want to print X in hexadecimal with at least two digits, left justified on an eight-character wide field. I don't
337.
by foxfluff 5y ago
That's the theory. Works great when there are no bugs and everything's been designed just right. In that world you could wipe implementations from memory because you won't ever need to dive in.. Very often I'm looking
338.
by foxfluff 5y ago
The types are there.. but you don't know which one it is that your program is dealing with. You could have dozens of implementations for any given abstract interface. One gets picked up at run time.
339.
by foxfluff 5y ago
Static languages unfortunately don't save you from that. You find automatically inferred types, or types that refer to some abstract interface or template-class-mess but you have no idea where the actual implementation lives until you
340.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> I dislike Google and their products pretty much universally, but having this sort of thing done by a competitor is not just distasteful, I see it as verging on corporatism. Don't shoot the messenger? I think everyone should have
341.
by foxfluff 5y ago
Even private individuals have been smacked with GDPR fines.
342.
by foxfluff 5y ago
Alright, yea, if you're working under constraints like that, C sucks more than it has to. It just doesn't feel fair to criticize C without mentioning that your experience comes from working under such unusual constraints. "S
343.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> I also dislike needing an app and an internet connection for the most basic functionality with some purchased device. Yeah, my watch supports setting (and syncing) the time and timezones using bluetooth. But before you can do that, yo
344.
by foxfluff 5y ago
Hetzner sucks if you care about support and not being arbitrarily blocked & banned without recourse or explanation.
345.
by foxfluff 5y ago
And even if you could do it, it's not a given that you can make a good one. In fact, I believe making a good browser is impossible because the web is fundamentally broken. The standards require your browser to be crap. The browser is
346.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> buf[len] = ‘\0’; So why didn't you use one of the bazillion library functions or third party libraries that terminate strings for you? I feel like most of the criticism is coming from people who punish themselves by rejecting libr
347.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> If it's really so crazy then how come the openbsd and wireguard people - presumably better hackers than you - are just out there doing it? Probably precisely because they're better? I can see why people who are struggling wi
348.
by foxfluff 5y ago
Dunno, I feel like the goto out pattern is substantially more irritating any time you actually want to return a value from the function. I'd like to just return val instead of int val; /* ... */ ret=val; goto out;
349.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> You could make a feature-slim browser, but it would never reach wide adoption, because non-technical people would still need to open one of the big ones to do their online banking, or make video calls, or whatever. Yeah. There are sli
350.
by foxfluff 5y ago
The web is too complex, and also a moving target. You don't just write a browser and be done with it. Are you prepared to devote your entire life to it? Why not?
351.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> is it something that is guaranteed to happen eventually even though it is unlikely? No. If you have an instrument operating at 4.3GHz and it suffers interference from radios operating at 3.9GHz, it indicates inadequate filtering. Tha
352.
by foxfluff 5y ago
It seems a bit limiting, yes, but this does not seem like a major limitation to me. Especially if we compare it to how existing practice with goto based cleanup handlers would work in this example. It doesn't really matter that the r
353.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> Users are consistently choosing locked down Apple ecosystem over more open Android. How are you going to explain this? Not true in my part of the world. I don't know, maybe people over there see iPhone as a status symbol? Or jus
354.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> That's true of literally every resource acquisition, including malloc and fopen. It's all bits in memory. Hard disagree. Taking an action that causes a finite resource (fds, memory, ports, etc.) to be allocated and used up i
355.
by foxfluff 5y ago
I would allow fair competition and let the user choose. You don't need a monopoly to have curated storefronts. For example, GOG is curated and if I don't like their curation, I can look at Steam or a plethora of other stores. F-D
356.
by foxfluff 5y ago
Some Google engineer probably thought they were very clever when they applied "the algorithm" to translated titles. Pretty fucking draconian some of those rules, if you ask me. In games and works of art it's not uncommon to
357.
by foxfluff 5y ago
Only if you shoehorn some kind of object model into things that aren't inherently so. For example, though you can "acquire" locks, it's really just flipping a bit of state that already exists somewhere more than it is g
358.
by foxfluff 5y ago
Sure, though that's missing the point. I want "call this function later", not "allocate (and later deallocate and do stuff with) this object." Using objects with destructors is just a roundabout way to achieve the
359.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> And if defer is meant to make code slimmer, it still doesn't belong to C, because it leads to implicit execution and memory/stack allocation. I don't see why block scoped defer should cause any more memory or stack alloc
360.
by foxfluff 5y ago
> I've written countless functions in this style and I don't enjoy it. I think it's better than the other styles of resource cleanup in C, but it's not ideal. I've got almost a couple decades of C behind me, and

More ›