jibal

7 ms·

91.
by jibal 2mo ago
Human smell.
92.
by jibal 2mo ago
It seems quite straightforward.
93.
by jibal 2mo ago
Not relevant.
94.
by jibal 2mo ago
Yes, words matter. Here are some of mine: > Their thesis may well be right but this example is completely wrong And then I explain in detail how it is wrong. The words you quote (notably, the word "want") are not in the state
95.
by jibal 2mo ago
Their thesis may well be right but this example is completely wrong: > Stockfish has a clear goal, and it consistently and relentlessly pursues this goal. Nothing the other player does can cause Stockfish to drop this goal; no interact
96.
by jibal 2mo ago
These are technical questions with very good technical answers. Consider doing research rather than taking potshots at the design. In particular, Zig is still pre-1.0 and is very explicitly subject to change, and it was very important to ma
97.
by jibal 2mo ago
No, printf does not flush when \n is encountered, unless you specify it with setvbuf(stdout, NULL, _IOLBF, 0); And data files don't generally end with a newline. POSIX buffers aren't generally flushed until fflush or fclose is cal
98.
by jibal 2mo ago
Old way to write: try writer.print("Hello {s}\n", .{"world"}); New way to write: try writer.print("Hello {s}\n", .{"world"});
99.
by jibal 2mo ago
Counting LoC in boilerplate is somewhere between silly and absurd ... there's just one instance of those lines for a large body of code. 3 more lines is not "much more verbose". Old way to write: try writer.print("Hello
100.
by jibal 2mo ago
But the original Hebrew word is "פְּלִשְׁתִּים֒" which is "Philistines", not "foreigners". The Greek has already suffered a translation.
101.
by jibal 2mo ago
But the original Hebrew word is "פְּלִשְׁתִּים֒" which is "Philistines", not "foreigners". P.S. My only reaction to the response is "whoosh!".
102.
by jibal 2mo ago
> Why do you assume a (sic) entire team of biblical scholars, working for years to translate the Old Testement (sic) for the NIV didn't know what they were doing? That assumption does not appear anywhere in their comment. Your rude
103.
by jibal 2mo ago
4 days to respond? I had to scroll pretty far in my threads to see this. And no response to my points about bad faith argumentation and not having read TFA? And you still want to argue theology and metaphysics despite my pointing out that i
104.
by jibal 2mo ago
Well, that clarifies your intent but it's a very peculiar usage, and more properly it should have been "claim on", not "claim of". In any case, there was no need or point to the words "the claim of" ... &q
105.
by jibal 2mo ago
That the standard had numerous flaws wasn't sufficient reason to vote against it, especially since I couldn't do anything about it since the committee wasn't going to consider my criticisms. Standardizing C had many beneficia
106.
by jibal 2mo ago
I have a 30 page document of errors and ambiguities in the C89 standard -- I joined X3J11 with the intention to present it as a "Monday paper" (papers from committee members submitted on the first meeting day) but I couldn't
107.
by jibal 2mo ago
Yes I disagree, because the algorithm to solve every problem takes longer to run than the remaining age of the universe.
108.
by jibal 2mo ago
It cannot be overstated how flawed your own statements here are. You shouldn't be talking about logical error regarding a work of logic when you don't even know enough logic to know what a logical error is. And there was no "
109.
by jibal 2mo ago
Utter nonsense ... there is no known logical error in PM. Gödel proved that Russell and Whitehead's goal was unachievable but that's a totally different matter. OTOH, Russell found a logical error at the heart of Frege's work
110.
by jibal 2mo ago
Also, it simply isn't true that @ramoz misread what they wrote, as I pointed out in both of my comments.
111.
by jibal 2mo ago
And then you drag the goalposts out of the country ... As I said, C was not "closed source", it was distributed with source under a proprietary license. And "all the UNIX clone vendors" didn't exist for years after
112.
by jibal 2mo ago
Do you mean the Modular site or the Mojo site? https://mojolang.org/ makes some clear statements.
113.
by jibal 2mo ago
Who said anything about 4 months? Your "logic" seems to be that they are releasing it in 2026 and there are 4 more months in 2026 so they will be releasing it in 4 months. That's obviously flawed thinking. They will probably
114.
by jibal 2mo ago
The C compiler source came with the AT&T UNIX tape ... it wasn't open source because FOSS didn't exist at the time and it was under a proprietary license, but it was not "closed source". Parts of MOJO, OTOH, are cl
115.
by jibal 2mo ago
> I guess that's the new normal. Yes, so basing confidence on it is totally bogus. Such comments are cheap and add nothing to the discussion of Mojo reaching 1.0 status.
116.
by jibal 2mo ago
Even if so, the "You're misreading what I said" charge was bogus and it would be nice if you admitted that. Edit: > What are they implying by citing that? That Raft implementations in all languages have bugs? That's w
117.
by jibal 2mo ago
> Who cares? [sorry, but that question is trolling] People who want to use the most appropriate tool. > Use the ones more appropriate for what you are trying to do. What they are trying to do is find a programming language that LLMs w
118.
by jibal 2mo ago
I think you're projecting. You wrote > Go still has not yielded a correct implementation of Raft or Paxos while there are dozens in Java, C++, and Rust. That says that there are correct (i.e., bug-free) implementations in those lang
119.
by jibal 2mo ago
Still no evidence or other support for these claims = bad faith.
120.
by jibal 2mo ago
The extraordinary claim at issue is YOURS: > News just in: talking about your mental health, especially for men, does not improve your mental health. > For the majority of men, most of the time.

More ›