jhgb

85 ms·

901.
by jhgb 5y ago
> The foundation for all decisions is and always has been values. Values are opinions based on feelings. That line of reasoning would lead you to conclude that everything is feeling. But you give examples of things that can eventually
902.
by jhgb 5y ago
> A binary that's included in the Linux Standard Base. Which computers don't you have it on? I'm using some Windows computers. But for example I can use (and often do) a dumped SBCL binary on them just fine, even on those
903.
by jhgb 5y ago
Scheme doesn't have references. > The moment you do stuff with set-car! and friends you are very explicitly working with references No, you're not. At least not in the sense that references are references in C++ or in the estab
904.
by jhgb 5y ago
"Consider a spherical tardigrade in vacuum..."
905.
by jhgb 5y ago
> Under 'pass' all passwords conforming to chosen rules are equally likely, under your approach some are twice as likely as others. But they're passwords. At most half of the passwords will have different probability than
906.
by jhgb 5y ago
With a non-trivial (= much more realistic) length of your random number, how do you ever lose more than a fraction of a bit of entropy this way? Let's say you want a 16-character alphanumeric (a-zA-Z0-9) password. log₂ 62¹⁶≈95.267. Let
907.
by jhgb 5y ago
> I hate almost everything about JavaScript, its syntax, the decisions made and steps taken in its development Well, one of them was done in ten days by a guy who liked Java and the other one was done in a few years by a guy who liked Sm
908.
by jhgb 5y ago
> Because there is no newly invented architecture called "modular monolith" - monolith was always supposed to be MODULAR from the start. Isn't "non-modular monolith" just spaghetti code? The way I understand it,
909.
by jhgb 5y ago
See, emteycz? Popularity is not the same thing as satisfaction. ;)
910.
by jhgb 5y ago
If you have an M-sized alphabet and you need an n-character password, why not just take ⌈log₂ Mⁿ⌉ bits and interpret it as a number in base M? That seems even simpler to me.
911.
by jhgb 5y ago
> but use some assembly tricks to ensure there is always valid memory available after the end of the buffer Isn't rounding up your buffer's size an allocation technique rather than "as assembly trick"?
912.
by jhgb 5y ago
> Everything world-editable is eventually filled with depictions of genitals and N-words. Must be a theorem. Boltzmann's Black Dick?
913.
by jhgb 5y ago
Just because "society" is doing something doesn't mean that you have to. Society lies, steals, murders, rapes, but I don't have to.
914.
by jhgb 5y ago
And here I was thinking it would be about the language! Still interesting, of course...
915.
by jhgb 5y ago
> kind of "on demand AOT compilation" I assume you mean something like Common Lisp does with COMPILE? ( http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/f_cmp.htm ) That's just called "compilation" in some circles.
916.
by jhgb 5y ago
> Quite a quirky and bulky machine that was. But apparently, unlike the ZX81, it actually had a proper keyboard, so there's that. ;)
917.
by jhgb 5y ago
> How is ... not lexical scoping? That's literally just how closures work under the hood. In the presence of references in the language, these two cases may be observationally indistinguishable (maybe, I'm not a C++ guru?) but
918.
by jhgb 5y ago
That's why I wrote "at the very highest". It can't be more that that, but it can be less than that.
919.
by jhgb 5y ago
> But green hydrogen is only useful if electricity is cheap but batteries are expensive That is absolutely not true. How exactly will cheap batteries for example allow you to make ammonia for agriculture, the chemical industry, etc.? Cur
920.
by jhgb 5y ago
Well at the very highest it's 1/N, where N is the number of employees at the organization.
921.
by jhgb 5y ago
I'm not sure you can call this "a closure". That term has a rather specific meaning related to lexical scoping which simply doesn't deal with copies or references or anything of the kind. There's no "capture by
922.
by jhgb 5y ago
There's not a lot of waste to be burned anyway. If you separate U238 from the spent fuel, you don't have lot of mass left.
923.
by jhgb 5y ago
Gas infrastructure used to deal with coal gas which contained ~50% of hydrogen. Somehow it worked back then. Doesn't seem like an unsolvable problem to me.
924.
by jhgb 5y ago
> With enrichment, the world's known uranium supplies (5.5 million tons) would last about 30,000 years at present usage rates How does it matter if you enrich or you use a natural uranium reactor? The amount of fissile material is e
925.
by jhgb 5y ago
Electrolytic hydrogen can be cheap as long as 1) electricity for electrolysis is cheap and 2) electrolyzers are cheap. 1) is reasonably easily assured by shaving off overgeneration of electricity from renewable power plants. 2) is a matter
926.
by jhgb 5y ago
> and they didn't have gender but instead a system of animate/inanimate But...that's gender, linguistically speaking.
927.
by jhgb 5y ago
And you're saying that that was the reason? I'm just trying to divine the relevance of the "other frameworks that chose a different path w.r.t. metaprogramming seem to be the more popular (and growing) choice today" cl
928.
by jhgb 5y ago
Why not just "genital mutilation"? You don't have to be that specific about it as if there were some acceptable cases of it.
929.
by jhgb 5y ago
> my statement holds true for any Ruby framework Are you sure all Ruby frameworks use the same "path w.r.t. metaprogramming" as Rails? It's been a while since I looked at them but I recall many priding themselves in the di
930.
by jhgb 5y ago
> Does it make sense to write self-modifying code not for obfuscation but for optimization? Can we have such code to speed up calculations in a way that is not possible with static code? That depends; how broad is your definition of &quo

More ›