smaudet

28 ms·

391.
by smaudet 3y ago
> I'm a fan of either using a full-blown programming language or ini files How do you persist complex multi-object state? Think nested lists of objects with references to one another. If your answer is still "ini files", I
392.
by smaudet 3y ago
I agree. Here in 2024, I hope everyone agrees that types are great. Static types, aren't just verbose, they're clunky. They only work in a perfect world - dynamic types provide the functionality to actually thrive. > I someti
393.
by smaudet 3y ago
Issue I noted: I couldn't make the square go from bottom to top, or right to left, only top down or left to right: https://www.loadership.com/loaders/block_grid_scale 270 degrees or 180 should achieve this effect
394.
by smaudet 3y ago
Queues provide you breathing room to increase your throughput. They don't fix the clog, but they keep the kitchen sink from over-flowing while you call the plumber/install a new industrial line.
395.
by smaudet 3y ago
> There's no product in the world that would hit a limit if autoscaled globally on AWS > but nobody is making that product Nobody is making that product because nobody has money for it...(or the demand to supply that money). You
396.
by smaudet 3y ago
I think part of the article is just the author venting that people make design decisions without understanding the ramifications. Operating a queue as a buffer would be absolutely fine if there were also service level agreements implicit
397.
by smaudet 3y ago
Comparing apples and oranges. A protocol is allowed to have presumptions, and then provide an interface. Its not allowed to have no interface at all and no presumptions (A void).
398.
by smaudet 3y ago
Oh I might read their specs: "Willow is a family of specifications:" https://willowprotocol.org/specs/index.html#specifications This part looks useful. But is it useful to be a "willow" family of pr
399.
by smaudet 3y ago
Protocols are useful, and as such the costs are high to using a bad one. Confused verbiage does not instill confidence that the authors know what they are doing, or that there is real benefit. So, perhaps it is strong language, but I think
400.
by smaudet 3y ago
The difference would be that a function, order non-withstanding, is (a) callable (site). "Higher order", merely means one that takes/returns other functions, but they are still fundamentally, functions (callable sites). A pro
401.
by smaudet 3y ago
No I think you are right, this isn't a protocol. Its a protocol generator... "higher order" is some nonsense, and would make me shy away from using it...
402.
by smaudet 3y ago
You can't simultaneously claim ignorance and the moral upper hand. Unity knows they are generally in violation/does nothing, then refuses to work with folk? No. The OP could have been in the wrong, yet they are willing and capable
403.
by smaudet 3y ago
To be completely fair, their plug-in is still freely available. After being kicked off by unfair and unreasonable (uncompetitive?) practices, it's not unreasonable to say "hey they suck so we are doing our own thing over here&quot
404.
by smaudet 3y ago
Except that's not what happened at all, at least per the article they use LGPL and have LGPL code all over their store, and refuse to work with the OP at all over the issue. Unity are absolutely to blaim here, this is indefensible.
405.
by smaudet 3y ago
"While the summary in this reply is at best misleading if not simply wrong" - only if you take the summary too literally. Slow-downs of up to at least 30% did in fact occur (with the older hardware): https://www.techrad
406.
by smaudet 3y ago
See the CPU slowdowns and related security issues that resulted from branch prediction, basically CPUs would optimistically assume access and so could be tricked into executing what you wanted...which there was no OS or security level contr
407.
by smaudet 3y ago
I came here to point this out - sounds like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen. Whenever there is a 'detection' method it's almost never foolproof and usually pretty junk. For me at least, add it to the list of reasons
408.
by smaudet 3y ago
For an iPhone... Unless I'm misunderstanding the mode, there could be uses to get audio out of a USB port that don't involve phones...
409.
by smaudet 3y ago
Except Ubuntu did what Fedora/RH didn't used to do - break my shit. Everything would work great, then bam giant updates, everything broken (bluetooth, wifi, video, graphics cards, audio), have to start from scratch learning some
410.
by smaudet 3y ago
The issue is complexity - we could create some sort or 'standard tool' library that 'just works' on all platforms, but now building the tool and runtime bootstrapping the tool become more complex, and hence more likely t
411.
by smaudet 3y ago
Standard should be - tool tells you where it's configured, how to change the config, and choose a 'standard' default config, such as XDG. Assuming you aren't doing weird things with paths, I can work around 'dumb la
412.
by smaudet 3y ago
Usually the "security" operates on a similar principle, it's not actually any more secure. Upgrades are (usually) complete poison.
413.
by smaudet 3y ago
There are efforts, yes, but you will be surprised just how hostile the major players are towards this (and how big brother they are). If you know any of this the illusion that Microsoft (or Nintendo/Sony) are anything other than unethi
414.
by smaudet 3y ago
Or even general availability of games... Purchase a game console, why shouldn't the store remain functional indefinitely? Yes, I get operating costs for your store front, but the standard should be, _if you are operating a market it sh
415.
by smaudet 3y ago
Its orthogonal to ifdef sphaghetti so long as that's not in support of the (general) sphaghetti. I'm not specifically commenting on ifdefs, because ifdefs are only a small part of the issue (caused by multiple compiler frontends).
416.
by smaudet 3y ago
Only #if you ignore the hundred other issues with building portable c++ code: * Libraries * ABIs * Build system(s) * Platform compiler support... In compiled/interpreted land, most if not all of these are solved problems. Even for libr
417.
by smaudet 3y ago
What I read (did not verify) was that two users discussed and decided on the feature. That's hardly a well deliberated change. I think for user facing features it makes more sense to provide new behaviors as opt-in, and go through a lo
418.
by smaudet 3y ago
Hmm, bad analogy. They aren't really even in the same category, it would be rail vs airplane not car. "Powerful software is complicated." > you assume software today is somehow more powerful, its mostly not. Some Facebook
419.
by smaudet 3y ago
Android has the same issue. I don't think this post is specifically anti-Apple. How do you do anything on Android? Good luck, better know your Android version, phone version, check for updates, search the internet... iOS is more consis
420.
by smaudet 3y ago
What's "a lot of this argument"? I would summarize it as "Apple/Google/Microsoft have made a labyrinthine mess of their products (I would agree), seek to use AI to make it less messy (probably also true)".

More ›