pwdisswordfish0

15 ms·

91.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
The Computer History Museum really needs to do an interview with Walter to add to their oral histories series. pls halp.
92.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
So you want Syntensity, azakai's main pursuit before asm.js and emscripten became his full time thing.
93.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
>I had great success over the years with his moth joke [0] and the professor of logic joke Have you tried the Dirty Johnny "but in this one, he isn't dirty" joke?
94.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
> Paraphrased: "complexity expands so as to fill the time available for its consumption" That's a very liberal paraphrasing. Parkinson's law is specifically about the amount of time that it takes to complete work (by
95.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
holy fuck, does every little mistake need a solemn 4000 word apology these days? that’s already not a world i want to live in, but then even the apology gets shit on and invalidated. people need to take everything much less seriously, espec
96.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Look at the amount of confusion that idiosyncratic terminology led to among the people here in this discussion alone. Of course it matters. To repeat, first referring to the commit message body as why but then concluding you should call it
97.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
> I don't think anything in the subject or message should be a re-run of the code Well, you're just wrong then. These aren't code comments. They're commit summaries. They exist only to answer the question "w
98.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
To be fair, it's because OJFord is using really weird nomenclature. Example from their other reply: > Message: Explanation for code, why it's correct fix, background etc. ('how' I suppose) Uh, what? It doesn't m
99.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
The "commit subject" should be a re-run of the code in the commit—condensed into single, 50-chars or less line. It's the rest of the commit message that should contain the detailed context, which includes the why, but mo
100.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
I can defend my position—which is and always has been from the beginning of this (annoying) argument that anyone who says that GNU yes's implementation is bad—or that "10GiB/s" is pointless feature for something like &#x
101.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
The recent Van Buren decision would make that unlikely. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27389500
102.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
I’ve used QXW very successfully. The trick is to have a good word list… I’m working on one for German, but it’s a bit of an undertaking and I guess pretty subjective.
103.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
You're either still misreading and believing that you're arguing against a position that is at odds with yours, or you know it's not at odds but have weird ideas about how argument works. My position is: either articulate an
104.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Wrong thread? How is this a response to the previous comment? Arguing that you want /usr/bin/yes to "be the best possible implementation" in terms of efficiency is a weird way of being in "violent agreement&q
105.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
> waiting for TRIX to be released as free, something that never happened Needs correction.
106.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
I'm curious as well. On the other hand, does it need ... whatever it is that GNU yes's decriers are after? The choice to focus on /usr/bin/yes as a case study is at least as bad as the GNU advocates' retort
107.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Does Lua differ in that regard? Lua seems to be tolerated (as a necessary evil, for certain definitions of "necessary") more than it is actively enjoyed. Not obvious why Object Pascal wouldn't be viewed the same and couldn&
108.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Not what I was talking about. What you're describing is a great way to make your co-workers hate you (or make your subordinates hate working for you if you have any and you tolerate this style of communication) while telling yourself
109.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Don't underestimate the practicality of telling people to fuck off, even if it will have to be put in different words. If for some reason that's not practical, then that's a problem in itself, so try working on that. As ha
110.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Don't use broken Regexes like this one to validate email addresses.
111.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Yesterday: https://spectrum.ieee.org/we-need-software-updates-forever https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28625453
112.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Your brain can be “brute-forced” and Mossad will do it.
113.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4A35EEAEE3880943
114.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Mac devs have been complaining for a long time that Xcode and the entire developer experience sucks. It sucks (1) in the way that most native development sucks, and (2) an extra layer of suck on top of that. The Mac platform also used to b
115.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Let’s contribute some!
116.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
CLAs are not in your interests, people. This is what they bring to the table, and it's the only thing. To benefit someone else (the people asking to to sign it), not you. Stop agreeing to them.
117.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Shouldn’t it be platypodes?
118.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
You're mixing up "public" with "published" (intentionally, perhaps). > I am disputing that you are interpreting the definition correctly. And I question whether you've actually made an attempt to grok the s
119.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
You seem to have difficulty following the logical throughline here. There is no playing dumb in the previous comment. Let's put it in a statement instead of the form of a question: it does not follow to respond to the quoted part (&qu
120.
by pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
What relation does your question have to the statement you're quoting?

More ›