I have got completely lost here. So, you have taken parts of my two comments and put them together with minor modifications?! To accomplish exactly what? Pffffffff
Thanks. Already clear after having read the previous comment.
2. If you need to explain your humour to that extent, then you're doing it wrong.
Although you are kind of right, it is also a matter of (uninvited) audience. I don't need to explain anything when talking directly or even by writing to the right audience. The problem with internet and mainly with my attitude is that I have been lately attracting a kind of audience very far away from being my target. This self-invited-and-getting-everything-wrong people have proven be kind of bothering; not exactly a problem, but kind of a time waste. All my over-clarifications are addressed to these individuals; even though they never get anything right, not even step-by-step explanations. I might plainly ignore those people and not explain anything (because explaining is precisely what makes me waste time). But can I say? This is who I am. LOL.
Ah! Thanks. I am regularly using HTML tags (e.g., for quotes, bolding text, creating links, etc.) without any problem. That's why I assumed that all what was related to HTML parsing (detecting the actual tags and ignoring anything else) was fine here.
Why? Because I describe the most logical "issues" which a person like you (= cowardly and unmotivatedly attacking someone by relying on ridiculously generic reference including lots of different people) might have? Do you see me attacking others for no reason? Doing it anonymously (FYI, I have always use this account for all my posts here)? Relying on generic labels to somehow attack a big proportion of people? If you see me doing any of that stuff, you can safely start assuming that I might have the kind of problems which I guess that you have.
I am trying to write the sarcasm ending tag (meant to be within the parenthesis in that previous comment) but it gets always deleted?! Someone here should review the HTML parsing part!
But this would have been too easy and I don't like easy things (). Additionally, the whole point of the post was helping those not getting (my) humour right, not just now but in general. Anyway, I felt like writing it in this way and this is exactly what I did:)
?! I paid special attention to make that post as clear as I could to everyone and even though someone still misunderstands it?! Not trying to offend you, but I found your reply quite surprising. See, the title is a quote of the summary and the first paragraph tries to answer that quote in a jokish way. The following paragraphs explain why the first paragraph should be understood as a joke. I do recognise that its structure isn't too clear and it even includes various grammar/spelling mistakes; I wasn't planning to write a so long post (it came up on the go). Hopefully, everything is clear now.
You have serious problems, right? I don't mean one or two isolate issues, but some serious stuff going on like feeling anger for no reason or being depressed more or less regularly. Sorry but I cannot help you. I am also not willing to be a punching-bag for you to release that empty nonsense which burns inside you. Please, go bother someone else.
Just users? Why? I might have bought a couple of bazookas there, but wasn't planning to do anything wrong with them! One was for personal use (self-defence and, eventually, taking part in a coup somewhere) and the other one for a wedding present. Lock the horrible people selling me those products down, but let innocent customers in peace!
Do you have problems to get context/sarcasm right? I will try to help you by analysing the previous paragraph. Let's get started... The first question coming to the mind of a sarcasm-challenged individual is "how can I know that this isn't serious? The poster might be actually doing all these things!" The trick is trying to find a more or less absolute reference point helping you to assess the seriousness of the given statement. Ideally, you should know something about the background/knowledge/personality/expectations/etc. of the given person; but in some cases like here, it might even be enough with just having a clear enough understanding of the world surrounding you. There are even some generic approaches on which you might rely; some examples: have you ever done or actually met a person doing such a thing? Is this about some kind of information which doesn't make too much sense to give out? Is the given person getting any kind of benefit by telling you all this? (It might sound a bit surprising to you most of people care much more about themselves/closer-to-them-persons than about you!!). Do you think that is there any sensible motivation justifying what you are reading/hearing other than tremendous stupidity/craziness (-> in this context, these should be understood as resources quickly, easily and pseudo-magically explaining what you don't want/cannot adequately understand)?
Even without knowing anything about me (+ by forgetting about the fact that this is account clearly linked to myself, like all my other online resources, and that internet is precisely the main channel for my business), having never had any contact with illegal issues/people, having never read something on the lines of my first message before, etc. you should know that people don't usually buy bazookas (neither for personal use or as a wedding gifts). You should also know that even in case of doing such a thing, people performing even slightly illegal actions aren't usually telling about those actions openly in internet (much less in a site with lots of traffic where the posts cannot be edited/deleted). Certain people (you don't need to know too much about me, just to skim through my profile here or even just know that the fact of contributing in this site already tells something about my probable personality/background) performing certain actions and/or being interested by certain items are also quite unlikely scenarios.
By putting all the aforementioned ideas together, the conclusion is that virtually anyone should be able to adequately understand my original comment as a joke just by making a slightest effort. So, what kind of people will be probably misunderstanding this or similar comments? Either the ones wanting to find something which doesn’t exist (why? No idea. Perhaps self-confidence issues or trying to attack me for whatever reason or similar) or the ones not accepting themselves/their understanding capabilities and not making as much effort as they really need to adequately understand. That’s why I think that most of misunderstandings (mainly of so extreme statements which, according to my personal experience, are being misinterpreted relatively easily) can be avoided with a bit of effort/(self-)acceptation/not-believing-in-magical-nonsense; without forgetting about the rarely-used-by-some-people-but-extremely-effective-with-me old approach of asking directly.
That's not much an apology Alvaro. Have you no honour?
Are you trying to insult me? OK. From now one, whoever you are (because you know my name and family names; but, from my perspective, you are a slightly-upgraded version of a random anonymous coward), I will try to ignore whatever you will write here or anywhere else, mostly to avoid getting involved in all this nonsense. I will not apologise because there is nothing to apologise about; but, as a farewell, I will try to adequately address your
I'm asking you to admit it is commonly used by the media to describe volume
This statement is extremely ambiguous and with many different potential meanings. There is no absolute authority (e.g., standardisation association) undoubtedly defining its essence. You have to look at the number of occurrences by logically relying on relative terms: number of valid occurrences (= using it to descriptive a big enough volume) with respect to total number of occurrences (= references to high enough volumes) and compare to the other alternative (= using it to describe a big enough area) again with respect to the total number of occurrences. Logically, you would also have to account for multiple relevant issues like different countries, cultures, target audience, media formats, etc. As far as it is extremely unlikely to get equivalent results for all the relevant sub-categories, the most logical outcome would be having multiple results (e.g., commonly used as X under Y and Z conditions).
So much effort, so high unreliability and so biased conclusions make this whole problem completely ridiculous. People in their right minds don't waste so much time to prove what, by definition, cannot be proven; and, what is even more important, it wouldn't make any difference anyway as far as these are just kind-of-humorous/informal references, precisely assumed to be taken in a relaxed and over-understanding way. I think that there has to be something wrong with people unable to adequately understand context and, more importantly, humour. All these comments are a monument to absolute nonsense; a good sample of what is completely wasting time/effort for accomplishing plainly nothing; an excellent reference to help understand why I try to avoid dealing with certain issues/people.
Additionally to have honour (I guess, because I rarely use that expression. It sounds to me like descriptive of old kind-of-fanatic behaviours I see in movies about kamikazes or Spanish mostly-wrong-or-brought-of-historical-context references), I am tolerant, understanding and can easily concede almost whatever when seeing someone needing it much more than I do; what doesn’t mean that I am willing to lie or to accept what I don’t think that is right. I have heard references to both volume and area; not too many references to volume in general because of the already-referred counter-intuitiveness of this idea. I don't keep track of all these references because I don't even listen too carefully to this kind of reports; I personally find proper units much more descriptive than these weird references.
I have done a quick research in internet right now and most of the first results which I found weren't referring to volume (or size, but later clarified as volume/capacity). Most of these article rely on a concept which does seem intuitively easy: using the given liquid to fill X number of swimming pools; this sounds like an excellent way to simplify the referred 3D-understanding difficulties and makes much more sense than what I originally interpreted (thinking about a 3D space and locating swimming pools one on top of the other). As per this short research, I can say that it might (= I have no relevant knowledge on something which, as explained, cannot even be technically proven) be possible that swimming pools are commonly used as informal way to describe volumes. Is this enough for you? This is all what you wanted? Enjoy it and please try to avoid wasting my time in the future. Bye.
I have never and will ever do such a thing. I do respect every single person enough to not ignore them unless under extreme circumstances (belittling?! I am not even sure that this is a real behaviour; for me, it is just something which certain people say as an attack to those disagreeing with them. I haven't in my whole life tried to belittle anyone, no idea how could I even start to do such a thing. I have met many people having really weird behaviours towards me, not sure if trying to belittle me, certainly nobody has ever succeeded). Hyperloop-related chats have proven to be very prone to such conditions and that's why I have plainly decided to remain passive. Your short post already includes a good sample of the problems which I am referring: "tissue-thin objections you raise" (?!) Tremendous engineering problems (beyond tremendous as far as haven't ever been tried) are tissue-thin for you?! There you have it: an abstract absolute critic to all what I think about this against I cannot say anything?!
Any objective watcher should know immediately that there is no possible understanding here. I do accept that, plainly say so and wait for results (-> they would certainly prove me wrong). You don't respect my position and rely on the aforementioned absolute, abstract critic forcing me to answer and here it comes the infinite loop to nowhere once again.
The reality is very simple: this is an abstract-assumptions-based project where most of people supporting it easily relies on said abstractions. I am pretty much the contrary to all this. I do accept that, why you cannot do it too? Why talking when no understanding would ever happen? Why getting involved in the kind of discussion which I don't like and whose point I cannot even understand? But this doesn't mean that I have to be afraid of having an opinion or tolerate always unmotivated critics.
Ah! The original one was up-modded and its promotion down-modded! I guess that I am not the first programmer/engineer who isn't too good at promoting things:)
This seems like a better location for a post which I wrote one week ago with my medium-/long-term predictions for Hyperloop. As said there, I am not interested in participating in all the associated discussions, unless the (surviving) passengers of some of the commercial trips of the future (non-imaginary) Hyperloop are part of them.
Chances are your C program would be easy to transform to C++, line for line
I wasn't implying that it would be difficult. It would become plainly slower. The idea is extremely simple: on one hand, you have virtually nothing; on the other hand, you have much more.
See, although you have had a quite acceptably-understanding attitude, I stopped seeing the exact point of this discussion a while ago. For a reason I don't know, you seem to be interested in convincing me about using C++ rather than C and you think that you have a chance. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have none (not even 1 out a million LOL). I will finish the referred development in plain C and, unless under very specific conditions, I will continue using other programming languages different than C and C++. I guess that you will continue using C++ and I am OK with it.
For the time being, I am not planning to publicly release this C code, although I have created a repository (it is still preliminary/work-in-progress and I am updating it regularly) with some of its accessory methods. I don't think that it would change anything, but you might even take some of this code, convert it to C++ and do some speed tests (in that case, there might something of interest to add to this conversation). You can find it here (ironically, GitHub has automatically tagged that repository as C++ for a reason I don't know).
The world needs brash people who set stupidly ambitious goals and only achieves 10% of them every bit as much as they need play-it-safe types who set eminently reasonable goals and achieves 90% of them.
I am all for supporting people taking risks, even crazily stupid risks. These are the people definitively having a higher impact on human evolution. They are also the ones bearing much more prejudices, pressure and unfair attacks than anyone else; they are also the ones feeling more lonely and unsupported. I will always do my level best to somehow help and motivate these people. Unfortunately for him, Elon Musk seems to have passed from risky (even kind-of-crazily risky) but possible and potentially beneficial, to plainly impossible and perhaps not even too honest.
As said above, I am sure that he might get relatively well out from all this, but certainly not be with a success. Being a bit too passionate and optimistic and risky is always good; even in case of not accomplishing the given goal, there might be some benefits while trying to do so. Supporting what is evidently impossible by selling it as perfectly doable is a different story; it might even turn a bit ugly in case that the associated negligence isn't provoked by kind-of-understandable over-confidence, but by somehow dishonest means or expectations.
I am trying and it is actually quite difficult, much harder than what I thought. At least, now I write a clear indication in all my non-evident posts. I wrote a clarification (in upper caps!) at the bottom of my first message. My second message was pretty clear, I think. Anyway, sorry for not having been as clear as I should have been.
I will try to be as clear and non-offensive as I can at this point: let's better focus on dealing with other people; I cannot appreciate your let's say... peculiarities and, apparently, you cannot appreciate mine either.
I will not answer/read anything else in this thread and/or deal with you again for as long as you continue having the same attitude (likely to be a quite long time because you seem to think that your behaviour makes sense at all). I will not spend a single bit of over-clarification energy with you anymore. If you have any complaint, please write it here such that I can ignore it. BYE.
PS: are you seriously believing that I (or any other person with a bit of knowledge) will be accepting swimming pools as a valid unit of measurement?! I, a person who, additionally to having a university degree in the engineering speciality caring about metrology (industrial/mechanical engineering), has relatively-recently developed a comprehensive unit parsing library (UnitParser, part of FlexibleParser; its code is public and the part with all the basic units, classifications, conversions factors, etc. is quite reader friendly), will be accepting such a nonsense?!
I give him credit for whatever doable business idea he might have to probably become successful. He didn't even lose my trust when he moved outside his comfort zone (car manufacturing, space travelling, etc.) and expected to revolutionise those fields by applying ideas which didn't seem to belong there. I cannot give him credit for making miracles, because this is what some of his plans (e.g., Hyperloop or going to Mars anyone soon) need.
I am sure that if anyone can get out reasonably well from what seems a bunch of very problematic situations, this one is Elon Musk. I am also sure that we will not be visiting Mars anytime soon or travelling in vacuum tubes much faster than ever before.
Sorry if I misunderstood your post, but I have some doubts regarding you properly understanding my position. I am completely against what you call space-nuttery and virtually any kind of unrealistic expectation. I am a practical, engineering-minded, down-to-Earth guy who doesn’t need to think that some unreachable, big, almost magical accomplishments have to become true at some point. My first comment was mocking the unrealistic SpaceX/Musk expectations to reach Mars right away; and the second one was highlighting that even the craziest SpaceX/Musk dreams (without reaching the point of blindly and unmotivatedly criticising them) might not even have a chance to fail by bearing in mind the strict space-travelling regulations.
Again, sorry if you got right what seems my pretty evident intention. I am a bit tired of random misinterpretation-prone people wasting my time with their nonsense; that's why now I always try to make completely sure that each single bit I write is crystal clear even for the most stupid and misinterpretation-prone person ever.
Even if this was true, space regulations are anything but permissive. Talking, recording videos, having dreams, etc. is easy. Actually sending people anywhere outside Earth is a completely different story.
Is this "tremendous amount of effort to qualify that for safety for crew transport" really true?! Who could have thought about such a tiny issue to be so relevant! Isn't it enough with just doing some tests and simple calculations in a model and then scale the conclusions up? Or just taking what works in situations without people and adding the having-humans-there factor? Hopefully, videos showing technology which has never been created before will continue being a very reliable source of engineering knowledge!
CLARIFICATION FOR SARCASM-CHALLENGED PEOPLE: this post is 100% sarcasm.
When using software and mainly when being in internet, convincingly faking anything is very difficult or even impossible. Simply because there are usually many ways to reliably confirm any issue. The most curious bit is that the most afraid-to-be-tricked (= the most ignorant individuals) are the ones making the smallest effort to avoid such an outcome. People falling for fake anything in internet are usually the ones blindly trusting in the first thing appearing in front of their faces; behaviours which seem to support ideas like these people really deserving to be lied.
DISCLAIMER: I never lie or try to trick anyone into anything. In fact and as explained in one of my last posts, I am having lately an extremely honest and direct attitude in each single aspect of my (software development) activity, what seems to have provoked the curious consequence of the unmotivated fears of some people to unmotivatedly grow even stronger (not precisely concerned; I am actually kind of enjoying so much stupidity).
DISCLAIMER 2: I don't defend criminal/dishonest activity of any kind. I don't feel much sorry for people suffering the consequences of their negligence or even dishonesty (the scenario of the sucker seriously thinking that is tricking the trickster seems quite common) either.
DISCLAIMER 3: even by forgetting about all what I am writing above and other relevant issues like training/validating the algorithm, the linked video seems quite fake to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I have got completely lost here. So, you have taken parts of my two comments and put them together with minor modifications?! To accomplish exactly what? Pffffffff
1.
Thanks. Already clear after having read the previous comment.
2. If you need to explain your humour to that extent, then you're doing it wrong.
Although you are kind of right, it is also a matter of (uninvited) audience. I don't need to explain anything when talking directly or even by writing to the right audience. The problem with internet and mainly with my attitude is that I have been lately attracting a kind of audience very far away from being my target. This self-invited-and-getting-everything-wrong people have proven be kind of bothering; not exactly a problem, but kind of a time waste. All my over-clarifications are addressed to these individuals; even though they never get anything right, not even step-by-step explanations. I might plainly ignore those people and not explain anything (because explaining is precisely what makes me waste time). But can I say? This is who I am. LOL.
Ah! Thanks. I am regularly using HTML tags (e.g., for quotes, bolding text, creating links, etc.) without any problem. That's why I assumed that all what was related to HTML parsing (detecting the actual tags and ignoring anything else) was fine here.
Why? Because I describe the most logical "issues" which a person like you (= cowardly and unmotivatedly attacking someone by relying on ridiculously generic reference including lots of different people) might have? Do you see me attacking others for no reason? Doing it anonymously (FYI, I have always use this account for all my posts here)? Relying on generic labels to somehow attack a big proportion of people? If you see me doing any of that stuff, you can safely start assuming that I might have the kind of problems which I guess that you have.
I am trying to write the sarcasm ending tag (meant to be within the parenthesis in that previous comment) but it gets always deleted?! Someone here should review the HTML parsing part!
But this would have been too easy and I don't like easy things (). Additionally, the whole point of the post was helping those not getting (my) humour right, not just now but in general. Anyway, I felt like writing it in this way and this is exactly what I did :)
Who are you replying to?
?! I paid special attention to make that post as clear as I could to everyone and even though someone still misunderstands it?! Not trying to offend you, but I found your reply quite surprising. See, the title is a quote of the summary and the first paragraph tries to answer that quote in a jokish way. The following paragraphs explain why the first paragraph should be understood as a joke. I do recognise that its structure isn't too clear and it even includes various grammar/spelling mistakes; I wasn't planning to write a so long post (it came up on the go). Hopefully, everything is clear now.
You have serious problems, right? I don't mean one or two isolate issues, but some serious stuff going on like feeling anger for no reason or being depressed more or less regularly. Sorry but I cannot help you. I am also not willing to be a punching-bag for you to release that empty nonsense which burns inside you. Please, go bother someone else.
Just users? Why? I might have bought a couple of bazookas there, but wasn't planning to do anything wrong with them! One was for personal use (self-defence and, eventually, taking part in a coup somewhere) and the other one for a wedding present. Lock the horrible people selling me those products down, but let innocent customers in peace!
Do you have problems to get context/sarcasm right? I will try to help you by analysing the previous paragraph. Let's get started... The first question coming to the mind of a sarcasm-challenged individual is "how can I know that this isn't serious? The poster might be actually doing all these things!" The trick is trying to find a more or less absolute reference point helping you to assess the seriousness of the given statement. Ideally, you should know something about the background/knowledge/personality/expectations/etc. of the given person; but in some cases like here, it might even be enough with just having a clear enough understanding of the world surrounding you. There are even some generic approaches on which you might rely; some examples: have you ever done or actually met a person doing such a thing? Is this about some kind of information which doesn't make too much sense to give out? Is the given person getting any kind of benefit by telling you all this? (It might sound a bit surprising to you most of people care much more about themselves/closer-to-them-persons than about you!!). Do you think that is there any sensible motivation justifying what you are reading/hearing other than tremendous stupidity/craziness (-> in this context, these should be understood as resources quickly, easily and pseudo-magically explaining what you don't want/cannot adequately understand)?
Even without knowing anything about me (+ by forgetting about the fact that this is account clearly linked to myself, like all my other online resources, and that internet is precisely the main channel for my business), having never had any contact with illegal issues/people, having never read something on the lines of my first message before, etc. you should know that people don't usually buy bazookas (neither for personal use or as a wedding gifts). You should also know that even in case of doing such a thing, people performing even slightly illegal actions aren't usually telling about those actions openly in internet (much less in a site with lots of traffic where the posts cannot be edited/deleted). Certain people (you don't need to know too much about me, just to skim through my profile here or even just know that the fact of contributing in this site already tells something about my probable personality/background) performing certain actions and/or being interested by certain items are also quite unlikely scenarios.
By putting all the aforementioned ideas together, the conclusion is that virtually anyone should be able to adequately understand my original comment as a joke just by making a slightest effort. So, what kind of people will be probably misunderstanding this or similar comments? Either the ones wanting to find something which doesn’t exist (why? No idea. Perhaps self-confidence issues or trying to attack me for whatever reason or similar) or the ones not accepting themselves/their understanding capabilities and not making as much effort as they really need to adequately understand. That’s why I think that most of misunderstandings (mainly of so extreme statements which, according to my personal experience, are being misinterpreted relatively easily) can be avoided with a bit of effort/(self-)acceptation/not-believing-in-magical-nonsense; without forgetting about the rarely-used-by-some-people-but-extremely-effective-with-me old approach of asking directly.
Sorry, a typo. I meant "I have done a quick research in internet right now and most of the first results which I found were referring to volume".
That's not much an apology Alvaro. Have you no honour?
Are you trying to insult me? OK. From now one, whoever you are (because you know my name and family names; but, from my perspective, you are a slightly-upgraded version of a random anonymous coward), I will try to ignore whatever you will write here or anywhere else, mostly to avoid getting involved in all this nonsense. I will not apologise because there is nothing to apologise about; but, as a farewell, I will try to adequately address your
I'm asking you to admit it is commonly used by the media to describe volume
This statement is extremely ambiguous and with many different potential meanings. There is no absolute authority (e.g., standardisation association) undoubtedly defining its essence. You have to look at the number of occurrences by logically relying on relative terms: number of valid occurrences (= using it to descriptive a big enough volume) with respect to total number of occurrences (= references to high enough volumes) and compare to the other alternative (= using it to describe a big enough area) again with respect to the total number of occurrences. Logically, you would also have to account for multiple relevant issues like different countries, cultures, target audience, media formats, etc. As far as it is extremely unlikely to get equivalent results for all the relevant sub-categories, the most logical outcome would be having multiple results (e.g., commonly used as X under Y and Z conditions).
So much effort, so high unreliability and so biased conclusions make this whole problem completely ridiculous. People in their right minds don't waste so much time to prove what, by definition, cannot be proven; and, what is even more important, it wouldn't make any difference anyway as far as these are just kind-of-humorous/informal references, precisely assumed to be taken in a relaxed and over-understanding way. I think that there has to be something wrong with people unable to adequately understand context and, more importantly, humour. All these comments are a monument to absolute nonsense; a good sample of what is completely wasting time/effort for accomplishing plainly nothing; an excellent reference to help understand why I try to avoid dealing with certain issues/people.
Additionally to have honour (I guess, because I rarely use that expression. It sounds to me like descriptive of old kind-of-fanatic behaviours I see in movies about kamikazes or Spanish mostly-wrong-or-brought-of-historical-context references), I am tolerant, understanding and can easily concede almost whatever when seeing someone needing it much more than I do; what doesn’t mean that I am willing to lie or to accept what I don’t think that is right. I have heard references to both volume and area; not too many references to volume in general because of the already-referred counter-intuitiveness of this idea. I don't keep track of all these references because I don't even listen too carefully to this kind of reports; I personally find proper units much more descriptive than these weird references.
I have done a quick research in internet right now and most of the first results which I found weren't referring to volume (or size, but later clarified as volume/capacity). Most of these article rely on a concept which does seem intuitively easy: using the given liquid to fill X number of swimming pools; this sounds like an excellent way to simplify the referred 3D-understanding difficulties and makes much more sense than what I originally interpreted (thinking about a 3D space and locating swimming pools one on top of the other). As per this short research, I can say that it might (= I have no relevant knowledge on something which, as explained, cannot even be technically proven) be possible that swimming pools are commonly used as informal way to describe volumes. Is this enough for you? This is all what you wanted? Enjoy it and please try to avoid wasting my time in the future. Bye.
I prefer the version "I have/will never do such a thing" because it is less confusing.
ignoring and belittling people
I have never and will ever do such a thing. I do respect every single person enough to not ignore them unless under extreme circumstances (belittling?! I am not even sure that this is a real behaviour; for me, it is just something which certain people say as an attack to those disagreeing with them. I haven't in my whole life tried to belittle anyone, no idea how could I even start to do such a thing. I have met many people having really weird behaviours towards me, not sure if trying to belittle me, certainly nobody has ever succeeded). Hyperloop-related chats have proven to be very prone to such conditions and that's why I have plainly decided to remain passive. Your short post already includes a good sample of the problems which I am referring: "tissue-thin objections you raise" (?!) Tremendous engineering problems (beyond tremendous as far as haven't ever been tried) are tissue-thin for you?! There you have it: an abstract absolute critic to all what I think about this against I cannot say anything?!
Any objective watcher should know immediately that there is no possible understanding here. I do accept that, plainly say so and wait for results (-> they would certainly prove me wrong). You don't respect my position and rely on the aforementioned absolute, abstract critic forcing me to answer and here it comes the infinite loop to nowhere once again.
The reality is very simple: this is an abstract-assumptions-based project where most of people supporting it easily relies on said abstractions. I am pretty much the contrary to all this. I do accept that, why you cannot do it too? Why talking when no understanding would ever happen? Why getting involved in the kind of discussion which I don't like and whose point I cannot even understand? But this doesn't mean that I have to be afraid of having an opinion or tolerate always unmotivated critics.
Ah! The original one was up-modded and its promotion down-modded! I guess that I am not the first programmer/engineer who isn't too good at promoting things :)
This seems like a better location for a post which I wrote one week ago with my medium-/long-term predictions for Hyperloop. As said there, I am not interested in participating in all the associated discussions, unless the (surviving) passengers of some of the commercial trips of the future (non-imaginary) Hyperloop are part of them.
Chances are your C program would be easy to transform to C++, line for line
I wasn't implying that it would be difficult. It would become plainly slower. The idea is extremely simple: on one hand, you have virtually nothing; on the other hand, you have much more.
See, although you have had a quite acceptably-understanding attitude, I stopped seeing the exact point of this discussion a while ago. For a reason I don't know, you seem to be interested in convincing me about using C++ rather than C and you think that you have a chance. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have none (not even 1 out a million LOL). I will finish the referred development in plain C and, unless under very specific conditions, I will continue using other programming languages different than C and C++. I guess that you will continue using C++ and I am OK with it.
For the time being, I am not planning to publicly release this C code, although I have created a repository (it is still preliminary/work-in-progress and I am updating it regularly) with some of its accessory methods. I don't think that it would change anything, but you might even take some of this code, convert it to C++ and do some speed tests (in that case, there might something of interest to add to this conversation). You can find it here (ironically, GitHub has automatically tagged that repository as C++ for a reason I don't know).
The world needs brash people who set stupidly ambitious goals and only achieves 10% of them every bit as much as they need play-it-safe types who set eminently reasonable goals and achieves 90% of them.
I am all for supporting people taking risks, even crazily stupid risks. These are the people definitively having a higher impact on human evolution. They are also the ones bearing much more prejudices, pressure and unfair attacks than anyone else; they are also the ones feeling more lonely and unsupported. I will always do my level best to somehow help and motivate these people. Unfortunately for him, Elon Musk seems to have passed from risky (even kind-of-crazily risky) but possible and potentially beneficial, to plainly impossible and perhaps not even too honest.
As said above, I am sure that he might get relatively well out from all this, but certainly not be with a success. Being a bit too passionate and optimistic and risky is always good; even in case of not accomplishing the given goal, there might be some benefits while trying to do so. Supporting what is evidently impossible by selling it as perfectly doable is a different story; it might even turn a bit ugly in case that the associated negligence isn't provoked by kind-of-understandable over-confidence, but by somehow dishonest means or expectations.
why not try not being sarcastic
I am trying and it is actually quite difficult, much harder than what I thought. At least, now I write a clear indication in all my non-evident posts. I wrote a clarification (in upper caps!) at the bottom of my first message. My second message was pretty clear, I think. Anyway, sorry for not having been as clear as I should have been.
I will try to be as clear and non-offensive as I can at this point: let's better focus on dealing with other people; I cannot appreciate your let's say... peculiarities and, apparently, you cannot appreciate mine either.
I will not answer/read anything else in this thread and/or deal with you again for as long as you continue having the same attitude (likely to be a quite long time because you seem to think that your behaviour makes sense at all). I will not spend a single bit of over-clarification energy with you anymore. If you have any complaint, please write it here such that I can ignore it. BYE.
PS: are you seriously believing that I (or any other person with a bit of knowledge) will be accepting swimming pools as a valid unit of measurement?! I, a person who, additionally to having a university degree in the engineering speciality caring about metrology (industrial/mechanical engineering), has relatively-recently developed a comprehensive unit parsing library (UnitParser, part of FlexibleParser; its code is public and the part with all the basic units, classifications, conversions factors, etc. is quite reader friendly), will be accepting such a nonsense?!
"Convincing" Trump seems the easiest part of your plan.
the guy does deserve some credit
I give him credit for whatever doable business idea he might have to probably become successful. He didn't even lose my trust when he moved outside his comfort zone (car manufacturing, space travelling, etc.) and expected to revolutionise those fields by applying ideas which didn't seem to belong there. I cannot give him credit for making miracles, because this is what some of his plans (e.g., Hyperloop or going to Mars anyone soon) need.
I am sure that if anyone can get out reasonably well from what seems a bunch of very problematic situations, this one is Elon Musk. I am also sure that we will not be visiting Mars anytime soon or travelling in vacuum tubes much faster than ever before.
Sorry if I misunderstood your post, but I have some doubts regarding you properly understanding my position. I am completely against what you call space-nuttery and virtually any kind of unrealistic expectation. I am a practical, engineering-minded, down-to-Earth guy who doesn’t need to think that some unreachable, big, almost magical accomplishments have to become true at some point. My first comment was mocking the unrealistic SpaceX/Musk expectations to reach Mars right away; and the second one was highlighting that even the craziest SpaceX/Musk dreams (without reaching the point of blindly and unmotivatedly criticising them) might not even have a chance to fail by bearing in mind the strict space-travelling regulations.
Again, sorry if you got right what seems my pretty evident intention. I am a bit tired of random misinterpretation-prone people wasting my time with their nonsense; that's why now I always try to make completely sure that each single bit I write is crystal clear even for the most stupid and misinterpretation-prone person ever.
Even if this was true, space regulations are anything but permissive. Talking, recording videos, having dreams, etc. is easy. Actually sending people anywhere outside Earth is a completely different story.
Is this "tremendous amount of effort to qualify that for safety for crew transport" really true?! Who could have thought about such a tiny issue to be so relevant! Isn't it enough with just doing some tests and simple calculations in a model and then scale the conclusions up? Or just taking what works in situations without people and adding the having-humans-there factor? Hopefully, videos showing technology which has never been created before will continue being a very reliable source of engineering knowledge!
CLARIFICATION FOR SARCASM-CHALLENGED PEOPLE: this post is 100% sarcasm.
When using software and mainly when being in internet, convincingly faking anything is very difficult or even impossible. Simply because there are usually many ways to reliably confirm any issue. The most curious bit is that the most afraid-to-be-tricked (= the most ignorant individuals) are the ones making the smallest effort to avoid such an outcome. People falling for fake anything in internet are usually the ones blindly trusting in the first thing appearing in front of their faces; behaviours which seem to support ideas like these people really deserving to be lied.
DISCLAIMER: I never lie or try to trick anyone into anything. In fact and as explained in one of my last posts, I am having lately an extremely honest and direct attitude in each single aspect of my (software development) activity, what seems to have provoked the curious consequence of the unmotivated fears of some people to unmotivatedly grow even stronger (not precisely concerned; I am actually kind of enjoying so much stupidity).
DISCLAIMER 2: I don't defend criminal/dishonest activity of any kind. I don't feel much sorry for people suffering the consequences of their negligence or even dishonesty (the scenario of the sucker seriously thinking that is tricking the trickster seems quite common) either.
DISCLAIMER 3: even by forgetting about all what I am writing above and other relevant issues like training/validating the algorithm, the linked video seems quite fake to me.