gruseom

54 ms·

511.
by gruseom 13y ago
I read somewhere recently that the Maginot line has been unfairly maligned and that it actually did its job pretty well. Edit: this is the piece I was thinking of: http://ericmargolis.com/2013/06/on-ne-passe-pas-th
512.
by gruseom 13y ago
Yes, that's got to be the most relevant Wikipedia article. Since it starts with two examples of spying on the UN that appear to have had zero consequences, I guess I was wrong.
513.
by gruseom 13y ago
What international agent has the power to enforce anything on the U.S.? Clearly none. So it follows from what you're saying that the U.S. doesn't have any treaty obligations at all. I thought even the hardest-nosed realists didn
514.
by gruseom 13y ago
That's not nearly precise enough to answer my question. The article refers in passing to a treaty granting UN headquarters extraterritorial status. Obviously, extraterritoriality as such doesn't preclude spying. The question is wh
515.
by gruseom 13y ago
Oh! Of course you're right. This is brilliant, and clearly the right way to look at it. I hope more people notice what you've said here. What ithkuil pointed out is that the root "cur" in "current" comes from t
516.
by gruseom 13y ago
treaties are meaningless Are there actual treaties that have been broken through any of this? While it does seem naive to expect nations to be "trustworthy" or not to spy, breaking a formal treaty is surely another matter.
517.
by gruseom 13y ago
Stimson was talking about people. Nations aren't people (they "have no friends, only interests", as the saying goes), and it's a mistake to anthropomorphize them.
518.
by gruseom 13y ago
You Scandinavians have it rough—your English is so often so close to perfect that the tiny imperfections that remain stand out. [1] When I studied Russian there was an older student whose mastery of the language was so brilliant that native
519.
by gruseom 13y ago
It's great, but all these definitions (this one, the ones at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6270128 and so on) have slightly different meanings. It must be maddening to anyone trying to get it for the first time.
520.
by gruseom 13y ago
The confusion is worsened by the fact that "concurrent" literally means "at the same time", so calling interleaved timeslices "concurrent" is an oxymoron. The fact that it's so hard to remember which is su
521.
by gruseom 13y ago
You're right that "scope" isn't the right word to use there, but I still can't think of a better one. Trying to accommodate the complexity you describe ahead of time could well be its own mistake. One thing I'v
522.
by gruseom 13y ago
I have code that calls back synchronously if a value is in memory and asynchronously if it has to make a network call to get it. It's simple, and I'm not persuaded by this post (or the one it recommends) to make it more complicate
523.
by gruseom 13y ago
I might have been unclear; what I meant was that the different programming languages or models that people call "dataflow programming" (spreadsheets, Lucid, Oz, FBP, etc.) have a lot of differences between them; and on top of thos
524.
by gruseom 13y ago
It's time to retire that Kuhn/Planck quote Oh, I don't think so. As its presence in Kuhn's book suggests, the kind of 'scientific truth' Planck was talking about is not just any hypothesis, but the much large
525.
by gruseom 13y ago
Do you think of stream programming as a kind of dataflow programming? If not, what's the difference? I suppose "dataflow" is an overloaded term, and the fact that its various meanings have quite a bit in common doesn't h
526.
by gruseom 13y ago
And still haven't. The most interesting attempts, like Ed Ashcroft's and Bill Wadge's Lucid, seem to have withered. It's not clear to me whether that was because they didn't offer enough that was different, or it wa
527.
by gruseom 13y ago
I agree with you about the visual-layout-makes-programming-easy spiel, but it does seem like there might be a little more to flow-based programming than that. At least a few smart people seem to take it seriously (e.g. on LtU), and dataflow
528.
by gruseom 13y ago
That makes sense. I thought I was asking a technical question, but it's never purely technical, is it?
529.
by gruseom 13y ago
Me too, but you do realize he just sold you on something utterly untrue? :)
530.
by gruseom 13y ago
I have two questions. First, what exactly is Flow-Based Programming? Emphasis on exactly . I know what dataflow is and I know who J. Paul Morrison is and I've even browsed through his book. I still can't figure it out, and the bo
531.
by gruseom 13y ago
He didn't say it did. He said it was revealing of Ballmer, who does have something to do with Microsoft's state today.
532.
by gruseom 13y ago
Can promises guarantee that condition with only library code? or do you still have to have try/catch in the application code, and if so where? Also, do any of the promises libraries solve the backtrace problem, and if so how do they do
533.
by gruseom 13y ago
I'd love it if you'd write something about what you learned through that process, what you tried that didn't work and so on. It's pretty significant that you couldn't make something good enough after two years and w
534.
by gruseom 13y ago
The first-parameter convention only works for application errors and errors from libraries that also follow the convention. Everything else, including the JS runtime, throws exceptions whether we like it or not. So either you have to make s
535.
by gruseom 13y ago
If you do it well, you can get very precise error handling, because errors are detected in the context where they first occur. However, to do it well you have to put a try/catch around every asynchronous operation, which makes nested c
536.
by gruseom 13y ago
You were doing ok with the contrarian perspective until the part when you personally attacked the OP. That's not contrarian, just mean.
537.
by gruseom 13y ago
Suppose all that is true. You're still wrong to be rude. It degrades the discourse and violates the rules of this site. Besides, tzs wasn't talking about karma. He was talking about getting shouted down.
538.
by gruseom 13y ago
You're right that there's a bias here, but there are also people on the other side and (I hope) a nontrivial number who don't identify with sides and are here to learn. So your understanding is that it's true that people
539.
by gruseom 13y ago
There's no need to be rude.
540.
by gruseom 13y ago
You claimed that the studies kazagistar listed rely on outdated assumptions. So, specifically which studies are invalidated by specifically which assumptions? It ought to be easy to name one, since there are quite a few studies and you say

More ›