kerkeslager

6 ms·

61.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
I don't feel like I'm particularly harmed by forgetting cantaloup season. I don't generally forget that products exist if my life is actually improved by them in any meaningful way. You know what I do forget? What I was doing
62.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
So, no? Just naming a few of their products isn't evidence.
63.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
The best transit systems don't have ads. I've never even used free wifi that was ad supported, and I'm not aware of a situation where this is common. Ad revenue is nowhere near enough to build the facilities necessary to play
64.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
The best digital services I use are without exception ones I pay for with money. The services I pay for with attention are without exception ones I have a love/hate relationship with, which maybe fulfill some occasional need but just a
65.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
> Consumer Reports, too, has been captured by industry, and is largely useless now. Any evidence of this?
66.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
Is the first kind of advertising useful? It seems like there are better ways to obtain that information, like, for example a search. The benefit being that I only am presented with that information if I actually need/want cantaloups
67.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
Did you read the post you're responding to?
68.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
> What makes you think that the program is going to exit anytime soon? Because freeing memory in multiple exit paths of a short-running program is the definition of the problem he's trying to solve. Read what I posted before you was
69.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
Sure. And the rare programmer reading this who is still using that OS knows they're the exception to the rule. To everyone else that fact is irrelevant.
70.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
"Completely screwed up the production process" seems a bit overstatement: with the budgets at stake for these projects, adding a distillation step to the water isn't some massive financial burden.
71.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
Titanium is super easy to clean as well, without the downsides of non-stick surfaces. Silicone is the only other material that competes in my mind, although obviously it's used for different things than titanium.
72.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
I think that a blanket should/shouldn't recommendation for arenas isn't right. Arenas are a tradeoff: Pros: preallocating one arena is likely faster than many smaller allocations. Cons: preallocation is most effective if you
73.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
I feel like there might be some value in this header file for some projects, but this is exactly the wrong use case. > In cgrep, parsing command-line options the old way is a breeding ground for CVEs and its bestiary. You have to remembe
74.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
I don't buy that. It's not logically consistent to call a corporation a human when everyone knows a corporation isn't human, and the leakiness of the abstraction is obvious. More likely, HN simply has the same distribution of
75.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
To be clear, it's not the way WE chose to do it, it's how CORPORATIONS chose to do it, because it benefits them greatly: corporations can get all the rights that a human can get while being immune to most consequences such as impr
76.
by kerkeslager 11mo ago
> Most people who (quite reasonably) hate corporate personhood would probably have a knee-jerk reaction that personhood for a river can/should be normalized. Straw man argument. I'm for regulating different things differently a
77.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
> Turns out that an even easier way is just to assign 128 bits of randomness to each card and sort them by that. Degrades gracefully from biased sources, apparently. This was edited in after my original response, so I didn't respond
78.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
Sure, it's okay to be wrong, but it gets significantly less okay when you just keep doubling down on being wrong and refuse to admit you are wrong. Unless I've missed something, you still seem to be under the very wrong impression
79.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
> And if you believe nothing ChatGPT says then you simply suffer from the opposite bias. No, you're making a logical error. It's not that I believe the opposite of what ChatGPT says, it's that I don't believe what Cha
80.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
A smart move, not responding on topic, since you clearly don't understand the topic. Instead, just accuse me of being snarky! Guilty as charged, I guess, but at least I can read and understand what I'm responding to.
81.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
My friend, I am not hostile. I'm merely pointing out that you have not understood a single post you've responded to. Including the one you responded to just now. The following algorithm is not susceptible to RNG issues (in Rust, s
82.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
> From what I understand, the quality of the randomness of Fisher-Yates depends entirely on the quality of the random source AND that you didn't bias it by using modulo with a non-evenly-dividing divisor. It actually says that right
83.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
1. Every remotely competent language has a secure (P)RNG and is using it to Fisher-Yates shuffle. Go is not special in this regard. 2. Nobody in this thread is criticizing Fisher-Yates, because in all likelihood all of us are using Fisher-Y
84.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
Sure, it's a big number, but nobody was ever approaching the problem of generating a randomly shuffled deck by generating all 52! possibilities and choosing one of them.
85.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
> Why not just simulate a real shuffle? If you are asking why your proposed shuffling method is insecure: I don't know, and that's why I would never use that. Asking "why not do X?" is entirely not paranoid enough for
86.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
Interesting. I've read a lot about some complex JVMs, but I guess maybe they didn't cite their sources and I didn't make the connection on my own.
87.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
> It sounds great, but every time I see this argument, I end up going down the rabbit hole of actually studying how stablecoins operate. And every time, I come to the same conclusion: they always rely on trust in an off-chain oracle or c
88.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
I'm not sure I understand all of what they're doing there, but I did read the referenced Doligez-Leroy-Gonthier paper a while back and I am glad someone is doing something with that in a non-academic (maybe?) context. That paper l
89.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
> I was explaining why it is the way that it is. No one was confused what you were doing. I'm saying the historical reason for why it is the way it is, doesn't matter . I would hope we design our languages to be maximally clea
90.
by kerkeslager 1y ago
Yes! I've always been annoyed by this.

More ›