jedbrown

34 ms·

271.
by jedbrown 13y ago
It was partly snark, but I think there is some truth to it. A company says "we automated process X, improving quality, reducing production time, and cutting costs by consolidating the Y division" (where Y may be the "grunt work" that was au
272.
by jedbrown 13y ago
Technology has been putting people out of work for millennia. In the process, sometimes it makes new industries (new, but different, jobs), other times it just makes existing industries leaner and more efficient (fewer jobs, but all involve
273.
by jedbrown 13y ago
Subtree makes the most sense when you have a component that is completely dominated by its parent, but which you want to also release stand-alone. For example, we use it for a build system that gets 90% of its use and testing (and essentia
274.
by jedbrown 13y ago
OfflineIMAP crashes a lot. I have been using it for many years and with each upgrade, I'm optimistic that stability and/or performance will improve, but it still sucks a huge amount of CPU and hangs several times per day.
275.
by jedbrown 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
276.
by jedbrown 13y ago
The intent is "don't rebase if you might have a downstream". You're welcome to rebase branches that you push as long as your workflow specifies that they are still volatile. For example, we push unfinished topic branches to our team repo
277.
by jedbrown 13y ago
You never merge 'next' to 'master'. You merge topic branches when the topic is considered to be complete and stable (it "graduates"). The rerere [1,2,3] feature (a fantastic set-and-forget feature) ensures that you won't have to resolve t
278.
by jedbrown 13y ago
The timestamp thing is a red herring. Git tracks CommitDate and AuthorDate separately. CommitDate gets updated by default in a rebase. Use 'git rebase --ignore-date' to also update AuthorDate, though I like having both pieces of information
279.
by jedbrown 13y ago
The central problem here is neglecting to identify the purpose of branches [1] and a haphazard attitude toward "merging from upstream" [2,3]. If you use topic branches for every feature and bug fix, then you can even test them in an integ
280.
by jedbrown 13y ago
A topic branch workflow is tremendously useful even without separate people in the "developer" and "integrator" roles. For example, we have about 20 people regularly developing code and about five of us "integrate", first to 'next', then to
281.
by jedbrown 13y ago
Yes, and this way the inactive code is still checked for validity and does not leave -Wunused-* warnings. Use `#if 0` if you want to disable code that is intentionally invalid, then grep your codebase for `#if 0` and delete those dead code
282.
by jedbrown 13y ago
> Given how the airlines have gotten the TSA to check ID on tickets to verify that there aren't people using other folks' tickets It does nothing of the sort, despite the fact that the obvious loophole has been published in multiple ven
283.
by jedbrown 13y ago
With intrinsics, you don't have to think about register naming. You still might count registers to avoid spills (and check the assembly to make sure), but there is less of a mental context switch than writing straight assembly.
284.
by jedbrown 14y ago
Subtree only needs to be installed by the maintainer that interacts with the submodule's upstream. Everyone else just makes normal commits in the parent repo. They don't even need to know that the subtree has its own upstream (but they like
285.
by jedbrown 14y ago
This is backwards. Subtree import all the data from the sub-project. (There is no way to clone without getting the subtrees because they are a native part of the repository.) You interact with subtree as if you had one project, committing w
286.
by jedbrown 14y ago
I followed the discussion and read it exactly opposite. Ram was putting the cart in front of the horse ("I really need you to start reviewing the code now." see replies [1,2]) and everyone else involved in the discussion wanted to understan
287.
by jedbrown 14y ago
Presumably the mirrors also did not run an aggressive 'git gc' immediately after 'git remote update', so they would still have non-corrupt commits in the object store, in which case you could recover by "just" resetting any corrupt refs.
288.
by jedbrown 14y ago
It's disappointing that SPEC refuses to fix the code and is spreading disinformation like "it is at minimum arguable that the code fragment is compliant under the C89 standard". If the global 'int d[16]' is placed at the very end of a page
289.
by jedbrown 14y ago
Compilation of PETSc, which is written in the intersection of C and C++, takes twice as long using a C++ compiler as using a C compiler. I'd be interested in the time difference for compiling GCC.
290.
by jedbrown 14y ago
The performance is the same if you put the qsort implementation in a header. http://www.agottem.com/blog/inlining_qsort_sort
291.
by jedbrown 14y ago
What is the time difference to compile GCC itself?
292.
by jedbrown 14y ago
The Intel compiler tends to have an edge when you write rampantly inefficient code to begin with. If you structure your code reasonably, the only reliable performance difference I have seen is that the Intel compiler takes longer to compile
293.
by jedbrown 14y ago
Do you keep your comments version-controlled so that we can read the diff? ;-) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5215820
294.
by jedbrown 14y ago
C99 Section 7.1.2.4 (on standard headers): "The program shall not have any macros with names lexically identical to keywords currently defined prior to the inclusion." You can redefine keywords in your code, but they must not be defined whe
295.
by jedbrown 14y ago
If it knows the address is valid, it can use a speculative load. If it knows there are enough entries, it can use a wide load. Without that knowledge, such instructions could trigger SEGV due to an invalid pointer or the wide load spilling
296.
by jedbrown 14y ago
This algorithm is useless without quantifying constants or numerically demonstrating that the constants are practical for some test problems. Although they cite CMG in passing, they do not compare performance. They also (negligently) do not
297.
by jedbrown 14y ago
There are a couple journals dedicated to computational materials science. Two active fields are phase field models and molecular dynamics. Phase field models are mesoscale continuum (PDE) models based on the Cahn-Hilliard and Allen-Cahn equ
298.
by jedbrown 14y ago
In science and engineering, it's common to hear of "Computational X" where X is "Plasma Physics", "Geodynamics", "Ocean Science", "Electrical Engineering", "Aerodynamics", or any of a myriad of other disciplines. In these fields, the primar
299.
by jedbrown 14y ago
I just confirmed that the same occurs with Chrome 24.0.1312.52 (Official Build 175374). I'm quite sure that I am viewing it in a proprietary viewer. Specifically, the Chrome PDF Viewer. Surely you've seen these buttons before? http://i.i
300.
by jedbrown 14y ago
There isn't any DRM, the plugin is just listening to a "suggestion" that it not let me save (no error, it just doesn't do anything when I click the save icon). Everything on ScienceDirect has this property. I just tested with this paper fro

More ›