laumars

101 ms·

871.
by laumars 5y ago
That is so much harder to do than you’d think!
872.
by laumars 5y ago
You might be right but your argument rests on an awful lot of assumptions that weren’t detailed in the article. It’s just as likely it was intended to scale the way it had and it was just poorly implemented from the outset. I’ve seen this h
873.
by laumars 5y ago
I’ve developed on those systems and that’s a hardware imposed limit due to the, then current, technology. Which this 2000 var limit is not.
874.
by laumars 5y ago
I would have agreed with you if it weren’t for the other limitations, like the hard limit of 2000 variables and constants and lack of scoping forcing larger projects to reuse variables in multiple unrelated places.
875.
by laumars 5y ago
That’s a separate problem though and should be handled like so. Dictating in law what content independent platforms can and cannot disallow doesn’t solve the walled garden problem. It just places greater challenges on new entrants / wo
876.
by laumars 5y ago
Thank you
877.
by laumars 5y ago
> But who gets to make those decisions at Google Does it really matter who? The point is it is a corporate term of service and if anyone doesn’t like it then they’re free to use another platform (of which there are many). > what ha
878.
by laumars 5y ago
People join specific social groups because of conversational bias. It might be a mums group where the content is mainly baby related. Or a theatre group with talks about fine arts. Or a retro gaming group that talks about old computer games
879.
by laumars 5y ago
I’m a European so I’m usually one of the first to defend legislation of companies. But when it comes to censorship that should entirely be down to the platform. Some platforms might have a no nudity policy, some have a zero trolling rule. O
880.
by laumars 5y ago
The great thing about the internet is if you don’t agree with Facebook, Twitter or Google’s TOS you can use another platform or even publish your own platform. People might talk about FAANG as having “monopolies” but the web was built on in
881.
by laumars 5y ago
Is there any more content on the RPi rack that’s not on Instagram? Seems I can’t even view odd pictures on their mobile site without signing up :(
882.
by laumars 5y ago
> Edit: Within the law. To be honest, there is very little I see that should be censored beyond CP. The thing is, people are never going to agree where the line is drawn. So I’d rather let individual companies decide where they draw th
883.
by laumars 5y ago
Maybe this is a regional thing. In the U.K. have a few arcades like you describe but the vast majority of arcades are side businesses and populated with gambling machines. You see them in places like bowling alleys, sea side amusements, lar
884.
by laumars 5y ago
Those arcades you mention (where you pay a flat rate and get unlimited playtime) are sadly the minority. What you see in most places these days are ticket machines, claws and other pseudo-gambling machines.
885.
by laumars 5y ago
A lot of the problem is longevity. In the 8 bit, and to some extent the 16 bit era too, the memory constraints were so great that games were often pretty short. So the difficulty bar was set as a method of ensuring longevity. There was an a
886.
by laumars 5y ago
I wish modern arcades were banned. They’re nothing more than fruit machines that target kids. There’s no thought about enjoyment, it’s literally about the fastest way to hook a child. I know the arcades of old weren’t exactly innocent eithe
887.
by laumars 5y ago
Raw throughout isn’t the same as speed. The senior might spend more time doing PRs (juniors might not feel as comfortable), more time in meetings discussing new projects or architecting around arising problems. A junior is generally more en
888.
by laumars 5y ago
That depends massively on the kind of problems you’re trying to solve. I’ve written some software where channels were the right tool, and others where mutexes were the correct choice.
889.
by laumars 5y ago
On some tasks that’s true. I was making a generalisation rather than defining an absolute.
890.
by laumars 5y ago
It took me a loooong time to fully wrap my head around channels. They’re definitely not explicit and full of subtle yet devastating bugs when used inappropriately (which is all to easy to do too). Some of the boilerplate code around using t
891.
by laumars 5y ago
Most senior engineers expect to be out paced by juniors in terms of raw throughout. But what the seniors have over the juniors is several years of experience making mistakes.
892.
by laumars 5y ago
Car tyres don’t have any issue (there’s plenty of car/rail crossings) so I can’t see why a plane’s would.
893.
by laumars 5y ago
This is definitely a young coder because those features made some sense in the era they were created. In some cases they were life savers. On error resume next: This can be scoped. So I’m reality it’s was used in small sub routines where er
894.
by laumars 5y ago
> Wouldn’t this be more worthwhile to write in [insert favorite modern language]? sqlite isn’t your average C development, it’s got more lines of code written for tests than it does for actual code. Given the extensive tests written ag
895.
by laumars 5y ago
I don’t think anyone in this thread would have forgotten that fact. The Op themselves mentioned Hurd (what was and still is intended to be the GNU kernel) so they clearly weren’t obvious to your point.
896.
by laumars 5y ago
The thing is, that’s all relatively recent in computing terms. For the vast majority of computing history it’s been 1024^n because that’s how the hardware works — you can’t have 1000^n in a binary system where bytes are multiples of 8. All
897.
by laumars 5y ago
Historically yes. But even as early as the 60s 8bit was the norm. IIRC C then “standardised” 8bits (though ASCII went some way to doing that prior to C).
898.
by laumars 5y ago
1000^n might be more human friendly but computers aren’t decimal machines and a byte isn’t 10bits. 1024^n technically makes sense as a unit for binary machines that have 8bits to a byte. Everyone was happy with 1024^n convention in the 80s.
899.
by laumars 5y ago
That’s fine if storage is your only concern, but memory doesn’t work like that. RAM has to be grouped in powers of 8 and assigned in binary. 1000^n doesn’t make any sense at a low level. It was a convention that followed later when HDD manu
900.
by laumars 5y ago
1000^ n is only really used by HDD manufacturers to make their storage look larger. Everyone else uses 1024^ n . X iB was invented to solve the confusion of everyone using X B but adoption was low and personally I think X iB is more con

More ›