philh

95 ms·

751.
by philh 12y ago
> The light example in this context, is well choosen : it is fundamental, factual and therefore cannot be dismissed easily. I'm curious, have you actually studied quantum mechanics? Because the impression I get from people who have
752.
by philh 12y ago
This could presumably be handled similar to how patch does it. When you make an annotation, you store an approximate location and say a hundred words of context. When someone loads your annotation, even if they have a slightly different edi
753.
by philh 12y ago
I can see why you'd make that assumption, but I assure you I'm not.
754.
by philh 12y ago
> Let me say this again: the problem of personal safety has been solved better (people are safer) in every other developed nation without ubiquitous firearms. Don't these countries have lower murder rates than the US has non-gun-rel
755.
by philh 12y ago
For what it's worth, most of the time I use ve nobody says anything. Probably they just think it's a typo, unless I use it multiple times. I'm okay with that. I've also used it in real life without comment.
756.
by philh 12y ago
I sometimes use that, but it feels awkward to me when referring to a specific person. And in this case, I think that at one point I was using "they" to refer to the employees, and didn't want the ambiguity. (I'll note th
757.
by philh 12y ago
Gender-neutral pronoun.
758.
by philh 12y ago
Ve described a situation and what ve did about that situation. Ve didn't say anything about assigning blame.
759.
by philh 12y ago
Why are you considering native speakers to be the relevant statistic here, rather than total speakers?
760.
by philh 12y ago
> They did not say it means less, they said that it was more understandable "teenage suicide is especially tragic"?
761.
by philh 12y ago
> That merits you at least explaining how his explanation is not illuminating I think that if someone could explain this, they probably wouldn't need the explanation. You can't ask "why don't you understand?" and
762.
by philh 12y ago
In SQL injection, your SQL server behaves as advertised. If you pass it SQL code, it will execute that SQL code, so you need to be careful that you don't pass it SQL code coming from untrusted input. With this exploit, bash is not beha
763.
by philh 12y ago
> You should never call out to anything by passing untrusted user input directly. So if I call a CGI script with parameters foo=bar, what data should apache pass to the handler, if not something along the lines of the string "foo=ba
764.
by philh 12y ago
If any phone is going to be subject to the same force at the edges, regardless of length, then that's what you want to be measuring. It doesn't matter if a long phone can handle slightly more torque than a short one, if it's
765.
by philh 12y ago
How is it different to set some environment variables and then call out to a shell script, versus to set some environment variables and then call out to a perl script, or a binary compiled from C?
766.
by philh 12y ago
It's used to export functions from one instance of bash to a child. Do you think that that's a terrible idea, or do you have a better idea of how to implement it? (The fix changes it so that exporting is done through specially nam
767.
by philh 12y ago
> You're arguing that we should only spend so as to maximize utility, but utility is subjective and that's why we value markets over individuals. Um. I'm probably misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you're suggest
768.
by philh 12y ago
Okay, thanks. The broken window just doesn't strike me as a central part of the broken window fallacy. To me, the important part is that people see the glazier getting money in exchange for a service, and think that economics is happen
769.
by philh 12y ago
To be honest, I can't work out what part of my argument you think is wrong. Can you clarify your objection?
770.
by philh 12y ago
If the utility function of money was superlinear (has a steeper slope the more you have) this would make sense. But since you're a human being, I'm fairly confident that your utility function is sublinear (has a shallower slope th
771.
by philh 12y ago
Skimming this post, it appears to only reference CVE-2014-6271 and not CVE-2014-7169, so probably not 'everything you need to know'. (Searching for '=>' doesn't show anything, which I would expect it to if -7169
772.
by philh 12y ago
I don't think this reply works. Situation 1: There is a window. It gets broken. The shopkeeper pays for it to be replaced, instead of buying a book. Situation 2: There is no window, and there is no need for a window. But the shopkeeper
773.
by philh 12y ago
Today, no. But if I lived in a time when you could expect that a handwritten letter from the CEO was actually handwritten by the CEO, then maybe I would, because in that time, doing that would have been deceptive.
774.
by philh 12y ago
Good point. It seems likely that caw will suit most of the time, but I can't think of an exact replacement.
775.
by philh 12y ago
> there's no way to express a real cw in a short number of keystrokes. dwi is pretty short.
776.
by philh 12y ago
That is a reasonable argument against the existing cw behaviour. I consider this to be a reasonable argument in favour: when you delete a word, you probably also want to delete the space after it; when you change a word, you probably don&#x
777.
by philh 12y ago
It's a reference to a Pink Floyd track: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Careful_with_That_Axe,_Eugene
778.
by philh 12y ago
If blame is a meaningful thing to assign, I'm going to assign at least some of it to you for not watching your son, and quite a lot of it to you for not flipping the switch. I much prefer a world where you are sad and your son is dead,
779.
by philh 12y ago
dd, cc and yy violate that pattern of vi commands, but they form their own pattern. (g~~ is another instance of it.) I agree that cw violates a pattern, but I think it's a reasonable violation. (Not necessarily good, but reasonable.
780.
by philh 12y ago
It doesn't need to be. My argument never assumed that. I don't know where you get the impression that it did. Take nine 0s and a single 1, then generate ten random numbers, identically distributed however you choose, and add one o

More ›