A smart one will remove the loop entirely, since nothing useful is done, and the program will exit immediately as soon as it's run.
And one that’s specifically designed to work well on that benchmark will still sit there churning when you present it with:
int main() {
for (int i = 1000000000; i > 0; --i) {} }
Sounds to me like their dead-code detection doesn’t work, so they hard-coded in a few routines that it can detect and nuke instead of actually detecting dead code in general.
My credit card company issued no-finance-charge “purchase checks”. I used to deposit them in my savings account to almost max out the card and then shuffle the money back to them in a month after earning interest on it in the meantime. They were definitely losing money in that deal...
It’s excellent advice if it was an honest mistake: either yours or theirs. If you knowingly went into debt and blew them off when they tried to collect their money, don’t plan on them being particularly cooperative or sympathetic.
No. It’s a completely useless busy loop. Optimizing it away completely would be admirable, except that if it is optimizing the code, it strangely fails to recognize that it’s still a useless busy loop if you add return; at the end or true; in the middle.
it's a bit like complaining that once you've jumped off a cliff you can no longer choose to stay on top.
No, it’s a bit like saying that once you’ve climbed to the top of a cliff you have no choice but to jump off it, because “You agreed to that by climbing it”. And then the guy behind you pushes you off it if you hesitate.
Microsoft is cheating their asses off by identifying the exact benchmark and returning a pre-computed value.
Do they even have to return something? That function uses nothing but local variables and has no return value! For all we know, IE 9 cleverly optimizes it to function cordicsincos() { return; }...
That’s actually worse than getting pegged rightfully, because if you’re the wrong person (a) the debt collector won’t believe you and (b) there’s nothing you can do to correct the debt. (If you’re the right person, there are actually more legal protective steps for you to take against this sort of harassment!)
Still, you might be able to find out from the debt collector who actually owns the account (the creditor) and contact them. If anyone can do anything, it’s the creditor.
Ignore the debt collectors, deal with the debt-holder. Once you straighten things out with the debt-holder, their collections agency will be notified without you needing to talk to them at all.
I had a somewhat similar situation, so I speak from a little experience.
If you're wondering about my $180, I contacted them immediately. After getting all my current information so they could commence harassment, they told me to log onto some third party site and contest it. I did. Three weeks later I got a judgment: REMAINS. I was informed that, short of litigious action, that was the extent of my rights in that situation.
I had my own encounter with debt collectors after some medical stuff (it’s nearly impossible to keep all those bills straight – you get the bill from the emergency room. and the hospital. and the doctor. and the weekend doctor. and... they can’t combine them to make it simple, apparently).
Don’t talk to the debt collectors. Run like hell. They don’t care about you. They just care about the commission they get.
Find out who owns the debt and how to contact them. The collection agency has to tell you this. Contact them. Cut the debt collector out of the loop completely. And I do mean completely. Deal directly with the party who claims that you owe them something; once you settle the account with them, they will notify their debt collector that the debt has been canceled.
In my case it was a bill I’d overlooked; in your case, it might just be a mistake somewhere. But you’ll find out a hell of a lot more from whoever hired the debt collection agency than you’ll find out from the collection agency itself.
By the way, that's the wrong smiley. The white-on-black smiley is Windows Alt+Numpad 1, not the black-on-white.
No, it isn’t. That’s the smiley you get by the following. Try it yourself:
javascript:var c; try { alert("HTML escape sequence:\n" + eval("'&#' + String(0x" + escape(c = prompt("Enter char:", "")).split("%u").join("%").split("%")[1] + ") + ';'" + (c === null ? "error" : "")) ); } catch(e) { (c > "" && c !== null ? alert("The character " + c + " is not a special character.") : void(0)); }
(Alt+Numpad 1, Ok) => ☺
You get the same thing if you enter the character in an <input type=password/> field and escape its contents.
Somehow your sureness doesn’t convince me.
In fact it will be a Unicode character (and completely dependent on the OS and software on the user side – if Unicode is even supported in the text entry field) and completely dependent on how it is handled on the server side, so it may work on some websites and not others (is there a 256-entry table of Unicode -> 8-bit ASCII conversions? or does some weird 2-byte sequence get stored like Slashdot used to do? or does it get stripped out and ignored completely?).
There are way too many variable factors for you to just wave it away with a dismissive “oh, it’ll work”.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of them get the much less-invasive metal detector, remove their shoes & belt, luggage x-ray, etc. I’m okay with that.
It would be time- and cost-prohibitive for them to screen everyone with the body scanners or grope-down.
A smart one will remove the loop entirely, since nothing useful is done, and the program will exit immediately as soon as it's run.
And one that’s specifically designed to work well on that benchmark will still sit there churning when you present it with:
Sounds to me like their dead-code detection doesn’t work, so they hard-coded in a few routines that it can detect and nuke instead of actually detecting dead code in general.
Then at least disclose that it's a European experiment.
Well, the headline did start right off by saying it was the LHC. And I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who knows that the LHC is in Europe.
My credit card company issued no-finance-charge “purchase checks”. I used to deposit them in my savings account to almost max out the card and then shuffle the money back to them in a month after earning interest on it in the meantime. They were definitely losing money in that deal...
No, that’s not what he meant at all. He meant that the libertarian party is full of anarchists who want to decimate the military, for whatever reason.
And... is that a bloody volley-ball?
He doesn’t push everyone off. Only a few randomly selected ones. And there’s candy just beyond him.
And even if he does decide to push you off, that doesn’t make it okay for him to do it just because you knew he might.
Viola, you have the exact behavior seen here - no cheating necessary.
When you make the for-loop count backward, it suddenly decides to execute it. Explain that. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913315, “Edit (like...#14)”).
Therefore, optimizing for the benchmark can only benefit the end user.
Just how beneficial is that, if it optimizes for (Step = 0; Step < 12; Step++) but not for (Step = 12; Step > 0; Step--)?
Conservatives agree with the Libertarians, on this particular issue. Other issues, not always so much.
Okay, I might as well add my own caveat.
It’s excellent advice if it was an honest mistake: either yours or theirs. If you knowingly went into debt and blew them off when they tried to collect their money, don’t plan on them being particularly cooperative or sympathetic.
No. It’s a completely useless busy loop. Optimizing it away completely would be admirable, except that if it is optimizing the code, it strangely fails to recognize that it’s still a useless busy loop if you add return; at the end or true; in the middle.
it's a bit like complaining that once you've jumped off a cliff you can no longer choose to stay on top.
No, it’s a bit like saying that once you’ve climbed to the top of a cliff you have no choice but to jump off it, because “You agreed to that by climbing it”. And then the guy behind you pushes you off it if you hesitate.
Here is a unique concept
Not very... Anonymous Coward already had the same advice. I give you the same response.
Did you read the part where I said it’s nearly impossible to keep hospital bills straight?
I paid all the ones I knew of. I missed one. It got sent to debt collection. I found out about it. I paid it.
Troll harder.
Optimizing for a benchmark is cheating.
Somebody ought to try simply turning the if-then-else statement around... i.e. instead of
if (TargetAngle > CurrAngle) {
NewX = X - (Y >> Step);
Y = (X >> Step) + Y;
X = NewX;
CurrAngle += Angles[Step];
} else {
NewX = X + (Y >> Step);
Y = -(X >> Step) + Y;
X = NewX;
CurrAngle -= Angles[Step];
}
Use:
if (TargetAngle <= CurrAngle) {
NewX = X + (Y >> Step);
Y = -(X >> Step) + Y;
X = NewX;
CurrAngle -= Angles[Step];
} else {
NewX = X - (Y >> Step);
Y = (X >> Step) + Y;
X = NewX;
CurrAngle += Angles[Step];
}
That’s perfectly logical. I’d try it myself, but I don’t have IE 9.
Microsoft is cheating their asses off by identifying the exact benchmark and returning a pre-computed value.
Do they even have to return something? That function uses nothing but local variables and has no return value! For all we know, IE 9 cleverly optimizes it to function cordicsincos() { return; }...
What recourse do you have when these guys screw up
Very little, unfortunately. In fact, less recourse than you’d have if you were the droid they were looking for.
I sound like a broken record (I’ve posted a couple of times already)—
Don’t deal with the debt collection agency. Find out who holds the debt and deal with them directly.
Debt collection agencies are little better than sleazy scummy crooks.
That’s actually worse than getting pegged rightfully, because if you’re the wrong person (a) the debt collector won’t believe you and (b) there’s nothing you can do to correct the debt. (If you’re the right person, there are actually more legal protective steps for you to take against this sort of harassment!)
Still, you might be able to find out from the debt collector who actually owns the account (the creditor) and contact them. If anyone can do anything, it’s the creditor.
Ignore the debt collectors, deal with the debt-holder. Once you straighten things out with the debt-holder, their collections agency will be notified without you needing to talk to them at all.
I had a somewhat similar situation, so I speak from a little experience.
You do know they can't reply if the modded? or did something change?
They can by posting anonymously from a different browser, or clearing their cookies.
If you're wondering about my $180, I contacted them immediately. After getting all my current information so they could commence harassment, they told me to log onto some third party site and contest it. I did. Three weeks later I got a judgment: REMAINS. I was informed that, short of litigious action, that was the extent of my rights in that situation.
I had my own encounter with debt collectors after some medical stuff (it’s nearly impossible to keep all those bills straight – you get the bill from the emergency room. and the hospital. and the doctor. and the weekend doctor. and ... they can’t combine them to make it simple, apparently).
Don’t talk to the debt collectors. Run like hell. They don’t care about you. They just care about the commission they get.
Find out who owns the debt and how to contact them. The collection agency has to tell you this. Contact them. Cut the debt collector out of the loop completely. And I do mean completely. Deal directly with the party who claims that you owe them something; once you settle the account with them, they will notify their debt collector that the debt has been canceled.
In my case it was a bill I’d overlooked; in your case, it might just be a mistake somewhere. But you’ll find out a hell of a lot more from whoever hired the debt collection agency than you’ll find out from the collection agency itself.
By the way, that's the wrong smiley. The white-on-black smiley is Windows Alt+Numpad 1, not the black-on-white.
No, it isn’t. That’s the smiley you get by the following. Try it yourself:
javascript:var c; try { alert("HTML escape sequence:\n" + eval("'&#' + String(0x" + escape(c = prompt("Enter char:", "")).split("%u").join("%").split("%")[1] + ") + ';'" + (c === null ? "error" : "")) ); } catch(e) { (c > "" && c !== null ? alert("The character " + c + " is not a special character.") : void(0)); }
(Alt+Numpad 1, Ok) => ☺
You get the same thing if you enter the character in an <input type=password/> field and escape its contents.
Somehow your sureness doesn’t convince me.
In fact it will be a Unicode character (and completely dependent on the OS and software on the user side – if Unicode is even supported in the text entry field) and completely dependent on how it is handled on the server side, so it may work on some websites and not others (is there a 256-entry table of Unicode -> 8-bit ASCII conversions? or does some weird 2-byte sequence get stored like Slashdot used to do? or does it get stripped out and ignored completely?).
There are way too many variable factors for you to just wave it away with a dismissive “oh, it’ll work”.