Just in case: I have nothing against Canadian football (something about which I have no knowledge), am simply in joke-mode and the situation called for it.
Sure. How could I react otherwise to a comment including an expression like "commie metric"? I don't think that anyone has ever used an expression like that seriously. Exactly the same than defending the usage of bullrings/soccer stadiums as area units.
Note to myself: better coming back to the previous approach of somehow tagging (adding LOL or something) all my non-completely-serious posts to avoid potential misunderstandings.
?!
Sorry for not having included something like LOL or:) or;) or similar to help "people" like you understand what was going on, but I was joking. Spoiler alert: most of people writing comments about silly units here are joking too.
Additionally, there are various facts which make your arbitrary (and coward) attack even more ridiculous; the context which any non-extremely-stupid person would have got immediately, even in case of misinterpreting the joke: I am a mechanical engineer (= lots of experience in dealing with units of measurement) and I have developed a comprehensive parsing library precisely dealing with units of measurement (UnitParser, originally written in C#, recently converted to Java).
such a shitty job
You mean being self-employed and doing every single second what I want and how I want to do it? Additionally, I am quite tired of dealing with invasive, pushy, stupid, etc. nonsense of "people" like you and am currently taking things extremely my way. Honestly, my current conditions aren't precisely ideal, but this is a small price to pay for the aforementioned doing whatever I want, whenever I want and without having to tolerate anything from anyone.
you can't handle anything else.
You mean that the fact of having two university degrees (in completely different fields) and having been self-employed for quite a few years under quite tough conditions (not anymore:)) with virtually no kind of support doesn't give me experience to "handle anything else"?! I don't know what you mean with that, but don't even remember the last time that "not being able to do it" was the reason for not getting something done.
Do you have serious problems, right? But why are you deciding to compensate those problems by arbitrarily attacking other person from the worst possible position (cowardly and without knowing what you are even talking about)? Does it make feel you better? Are there any people supporting you in these actions? Honestly, I have never met in person "someone" like you and I am kind of curious. Are you up for letting me do some experiments with you? Well... are you allowed to make this kind of decisions by your own? I might convince your carer if required. It will not hurt you, at least not too much and not for too long. Think about it and let me know.
Relax! I was trying to be understanding with other cultures by supporting an internationally-recognised alternative. In fact, I have no idea what 1 Luxembourg is either. I only recognise as valid area units the bullring and the soccer stadium.
I firstly read about this in a Spanish newspaper claiming that it was bigger than Madrid. Afterwards, I found out in Twitter that it was bigger than London. And now I know that it is as big as Delaware! And the worst part is that I don't even have a reasonably accurate idea about how big it is! LOL.
I will reverse-engineer your site to the last bit if I want to. Just so you know.
You can take any piece of software, use it and try to replicate its behaviour. Depending upon the complexity, your ability (+ the ability of the original authors), available resources, etc., that copy might be more or less similar to the original version; but you will most likely not create an identical result. Logically, you cannot emulate regularly-updated contents/datasources, what is pretty much the whole point of my two sites.
In any case, you cannot get the (PHP) code of my sites from anywhere (unless someone stole it from me at some point; in that case, I would be grateful if you could let me know about it:)) or duplicate them by exclusively focusing on retrieving the generated HTML (as said, one of them has a specific part including a virtually infinite number of pages). In other words: they are excellent examples of non-decompilable code.
The raw source code of a web page is kinda like raw assembler code
No, it is not. As explained, my two sites are fully written in PHP and generate all the HTML code dynamically. You cannot access this PHP code because it runs on the corresponding server; you can only see some of the outputs generated by that code (e.g., HTML). On the other hand, you can have access to the client-side scripts like JavaScript, but my sites have just a tiny bit of that. Web-based programming is formed by two parts: client-side (visitors can see the code via "view code") and server-side (visitors cannot see the code or associated resources). What you call "raw source code" is a complex reality about which visitors can only know half of it.
It is true that a big proportion of modern websites are heavily relying on the client-side part; but there are also quite a few other ones (like my two sites) which are almost completely back-end-based. In any case and regardless of what might be the most common approach, the statement "duplicate the functionality of most webpages easy enough" comes from the wrong assumption that visitors can have access to all the webpage functionalities (websites = client-side), an error which my original comment tried to correct.
A competent developer can duplicate the functionality of most webpages
This statement is highly misleading, because it doesn't apply to all the back-end part which is completely hidden. For example, a website consisting in plain HTML pages which are generated dynamically cannot be emulated. You might go page by page and store all the HTML (or any embedded code), but this task might be too difficult or even impossible; additionally, this would be a mere collection of the results outputted by the current version of the functionality, rather than a duplication of said functionality.
My two sites are 100% dynamic (written in PHP). You can try to collect the HTML of quite a few of their pages, but certainly not of all of them. Bear in mind that one includes a ranking of web domains whose size right now is over 9M. I have enabled a URL-friendly access which allows visitors to list chunks of that ranking starting at any position and including up to 250 elements. Additionally, these records are being regularly updated (at the moment, once every 24 hours).
Both scenarios are similar on the sense of naming conventions not motivated by technical aspects, other than they seem quite different.
On one hand, this kind of programming-name+Script approach was a somehow common proceeding some years ago (e.g., VB vs. VBScript) and the syntaxes of Java and JavaScript, like the ones of other cases like VB-VBScript, are also quite similar. On the other hand, both VS and VSC are sold by the same company and the "Code" addition isn't too common (and seems even easily misinterpretable); also they are completely different products as far as one is an IDE including the compilers of certain set of languages (the.NET ones + further additions in the last versions) and the other one is a programming-enhanced text editor.
A closer example would be the NetBeans/Eclipse companies selling a text editor with a name like NetBeansLight or EclipsePad .
After reading some of the comments here (and in other articles before), it seems clear that there are many people with a wrong perception regarding the Visual Studio Code/Visual Studio differences. And they aren't even close to be something similar: (new) enhanced editor vs. (well-established) over-featured IDE.
Why did Microsoft somehow provoke that misunderstanding by using a so similar name (whose intuitive short-form is precisely Visual Studio)? To help Visual Studio Code grow? And what about the Visual Studio image? And what about selling the idea of being misinterpretation-prone? A new twist is the fact that, unlikely Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code doesn't seem to be precisely a top-quality product (perhaps just because of being a newcomer to a market with lots of alternatives).
I think that Microsoft made a bad decision on this front and that, unless they are planning to convert it into some kind of outside-Windows Visual Studio, they should change the VSC name.
?! I don't think that you have got right my position regarding all this and/or interpret those quotes in the way that I thought that virtually anyone would have done. Well, I guess that I shouldn't be surprised at all.
Just in case you are still not getting it: I laughed a lot after reading those quotes (found particularly funny "The current situation is summed up in a Venn diagram" + “What we need to do is to move those circles together,” which seems to reflect the understanding of a 5yo) and was expecting other people to find them very funny too.
Statistically speaking, is there a reliable way to win the lottery? Statistically speaking, does whatever Charlie's mom does
Short answer: completely, absolutely, definitively, certainly, undoubtedly NO.
Long answer: [please, put the short answer here] because statistics/maths (science, engineering, etc.) are just ways to allow our limited understanding to somehow get more insights into too complex-for-our-immediate-grasp realities. They are basically tools, enhancements, extensions which only can complement our much more comprehensive remaining knowledge. Blindly believing in the first misinterpreted (because even the tools are too complex for us and have to be used very carefully) output of such a secondary source and converting it into an absolute truth isn't just completely wrong, but even against the purpose of that tool which has been precisely built during many years by people expecting it to be used in a completely different way.
If a theory tells you that there is a way to accurately guess the result of winning the lottery or flipping a coin or any other event clearly defined as random by our remaining understanding of reality, you should review your theory by being completely sure that it is undoubtedly wrong (you drew the wrong conclusions, you misunderstood it, you applied it to the wrong context, etc.). You are free to show a different behaviour, but in that case you should stop calling what you do science/maths/engineering/etc. and start considering more adequate designations like political, philosophical, religious or similar.
I'm an empiricist
I would use other words to describe your behaviour and expectations, but you might feel offended by some of them and am not too concerned about meaningless labels. For what matters here, you represent pretty much the opposite of what I expect from a person wanting to have a conversation with me. So, I will once again say you bye (hopefully, I will be able to refrain myself from commenting to your next post!).
I haven't watched the video
It is about the It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode when Charlie's mom was repeating everything 3 times because of thinking that otherwise Charlie would die.
Or GitHub is too picky with the tab/spaces differences? I tend to use tabs (not something I really care about, but... I wish the worst to the Hooli-loving space heretics! LOL), but also in languages not caring about spaces/tabs (every language other than Python?) and IDEs which theoretically should take care of these issues automatically.
For example, when writing C# in Visual Studio, I don't even need to use tab/spaces (write a line of code, with 1-space separations between words, press enter and VS automatically sets the left indentation of the next line). If I want to change the default indentation, I use tabs. Same thing with other IDEs I use like NetBeans, Eclipse or Code::Blocks; I also use Notepad++ quite a lot and it seems to perform quite well on this front (it might not even provoke the problem which I am referring right now). But here comes the tricky part: when I upload a code created with one of these IDEs to GitHub, I usually get some files with random lines being wrongly indented, even though they look fine in the IDE. I think that this is provoked by the times when I paste in the given IDE code which I have written with a different program.
This isn't precisely a big deal, but kind of curious. Why is GitHub not getting what IDEs/editors get and even what the naked eye gets (if you edit one of these files in GitHub directly, let it looking fine and save it, the wrong-indentation might still be there; you have to remove all the lines not fully synchronised with the expected tabs/spaces)? Or even more important: why caring so much about spaces/tabs in programming languages pretty much ignoring that aspect and compiling fine regardless of this issue?
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case: I have nothing against Canadian football (something about which I have no knowledge), am simply in joke-mode and the situation called for it.
Come on! We are trying to have a serious conversation here! LOL.
Sure. How could I react otherwise to a comment including an expression like "commie metric"? I don't think that anyone has ever used an expression like that seriously. Exactly the same than defending the usage of bullrings/soccer stadiums as area units.
Note to myself: better coming back to the previous approach of somehow tagging (adding LOL or something) all my non-completely-serious posts to avoid potential misunderstandings.
I was so blind by thinking that I had a problem! Thanks for giving me some context and helping me overcome my pain. LOL.
Additionally, there are various facts which make your arbitrary (and coward) attack even more ridiculous; the context which any non-extremely-stupid person would have got immediately, even in case of misinterpreting the joke: I am a mechanical engineer (= lots of experience in dealing with units of measurement) and I have developed a comprehensive parsing library precisely dealing with units of measurement (UnitParser, originally written in C#, recently converted to Java).
such a shitty job
You mean being self-employed and doing every single second what I want and how I want to do it? Additionally, I am quite tired of dealing with invasive, pushy, stupid, etc. nonsense of "people" like you and am currently taking things extremely my way. Honestly, my current conditions aren't precisely ideal, but this is a small price to pay for the aforementioned doing whatever I want, whenever I want and without having to tolerate anything from anyone.
you can't handle anything else.
You mean that the fact of having two university degrees (in completely different fields) and having been self-employed for quite a few years under quite tough conditions (not anymore :)) with virtually no kind of support doesn't give me experience to "handle anything else"?! I don't know what you mean with that, but don't even remember the last time that "not being able to do it" was the reason for not getting something done.
Do you have serious problems, right? But why are you deciding to compensate those problems by arbitrarily attacking other person from the worst possible position (cowardly and without knowing what you are even talking about)? Does it make feel you better? Are there any people supporting you in these actions? Honestly, I have never met in person "someone" like you and I am kind of curious. Are you up for letting me do some experiments with you? Well... are you allowed to make this kind of decisions by your own? I might convince your carer if required. It will not hurt you, at least not too much and not for too long. Think about it and let me know.
if you apply enough force to the sheep
As everyone should know (otherwise, HE might come after them), enough force is any number of Norris.
Relax! I was trying to be understanding with other cultures by supporting an internationally-recognised alternative. In fact, I have no idea what 1 Luxembourg is either. I only recognise as valid area units the bullring and the soccer stadium.
How big is 1 Library of Congress in normal units? I mean in football (or soccer for you) stadiums?
I don't think that any serious reporter is allowed to be so inaccurate! Do you mean European, American or Australian football?
I see. Here, we say bigger than the Iberian Peninsula or France rather than 1 Texas.
"Percentage of maximum velocity of sheep in a vacuum" as unit of velocity. LOL.
Much clearer. Thanks.
Anyone can easily understand Luxembourg-based area measurements! Why including in the summary that Delaware gibberish? LOL.
Thanks for the much-clearer-at-least-to-me version.
I firstly read about this in a Spanish newspaper claiming that it was bigger than Madrid. Afterwards, I found out in Twitter that it was bigger than London. And now I know that it is as big as Delaware! And the worst part is that I don't even have a reasonably accurate idea about how big it is! LOL.
Non-decompilable software would have made waaaay much more sense. LOL.
I will reverse-engineer your site to the last bit if I want to. Just so you know.
You can take any piece of software, use it and try to replicate its behaviour. Depending upon the complexity, your ability (+ the ability of the original authors), available resources, etc., that copy might be more or less similar to the original version; but you will most likely not create an identical result. Logically, you cannot emulate regularly-updated contents/datasources, what is pretty much the whole point of my two sites.
:)) or duplicate them by exclusively focusing on retrieving the generated HTML (as said, one of them has a specific part including a virtually infinite number of pages). In other words: they are excellent examples of non-decompilable code.
In any case, you cannot get the (PHP) code of my sites from anywhere (unless someone stole it from me at some point; in that case, I would be grateful if you could let me know about it
The raw source code of a web page is kinda like raw assembler code
No, it is not. As explained, my two sites are fully written in PHP and generate all the HTML code dynamically. You cannot access this PHP code because it runs on the corresponding server; you can only see some of the outputs generated by that code (e.g., HTML). On the other hand, you can have access to the client-side scripts like JavaScript, but my sites have just a tiny bit of that. Web-based programming is formed by two parts: client-side (visitors can see the code via "view code") and server-side (visitors cannot see the code or associated resources). What you call "raw source code" is a complex reality about which visitors can only know half of it.
It is true that a big proportion of modern websites are heavily relying on the client-side part; but there are also quite a few other ones (like my two sites) which are almost completely back-end-based. In any case and regardless of what might be the most common approach, the statement "duplicate the functionality of most webpages easy enough" comes from the wrong assumption that visitors can have access to all the webpage functionalities (websites = client-side), an error which my original comment tried to correct.
A competent developer can duplicate the functionality of most webpages
This statement is highly misleading, because it doesn't apply to all the back-end part which is completely hidden. For example, a website consisting in plain HTML pages which are generated dynamically cannot be emulated. You might go page by page and store all the HTML (or any embedded code), but this task might be too difficult or even impossible; additionally, this would be a mere collection of the results outputted by the current version of the functionality, rather than a duplication of said functionality.
My two sites are 100% dynamic (written in PHP). You can try to collect the HTML of quite a few of their pages, but certainly not of all of them. Bear in mind that one includes a ranking of web domains whose size right now is over 9M. I have enabled a URL-friendly access which allows visitors to list chunks of that ranking starting at any position and including up to 250 elements. Additionally, these records are being regularly updated (at the moment, once every 24 hours).
Both scenarios are similar on the sense of naming conventions not motivated by technical aspects, other than they seem quite different.
.NET ones + further additions in the last versions) and the other one is a programming-enhanced text editor.
On one hand, this kind of programming-name+Script approach was a somehow common proceeding some years ago (e.g., VB vs. VBScript) and the syntaxes of Java and JavaScript, like the ones of other cases like VB-VBScript, are also quite similar. On the other hand, both VS and VSC are sold by the same company and the "Code" addition isn't too common (and seems even easily misinterpretable); also they are completely different products as far as one is an IDE including the compilers of certain set of languages (the
A closer example would be the NetBeans/Eclipse companies selling a text editor with a name like NetBeansLight or EclipsePad .
After reading some of the comments here (and in other articles before), it seems clear that there are many people with a wrong perception regarding the Visual Studio Code/Visual Studio differences. And they aren't even close to be something similar: (new) enhanced editor vs. (well-established) over-featured IDE.
Why did Microsoft somehow provoke that misunderstanding by using a so similar name (whose intuitive short-form is precisely Visual Studio)? To help Visual Studio Code grow? And what about the Visual Studio image? And what about selling the idea of being misinterpretation-prone? A new twist is the fact that, unlikely Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code doesn't seem to be precisely a top-quality product (perhaps just because of being a newcomer to a market with lots of alternatives).
I think that Microsoft made a bad decision on this front and that, unless they are planning to convert it into some kind of outside-Windows Visual Studio, they should change the VSC name.
I laughed because its all rocket jock talk
Physics is simple
?! I don't think that you have got right my position regarding all this and/or interpret those quotes in the way that I thought that virtually anyone would have done. Well, I guess that I shouldn't be surprised at all.
Here you have references to some of my previous comments about this matter to help you and future readers (for whom statements like "physics is simple" makes sense at all) get the context (= what I consider basic knowledge) and my intention right:
- What I think of the generic-talking, video-based approach of Musk (sarcastic remark, although I included a clarification expressly highlighting that point. BTW, I see you in one of the comments below, did you get my intention right that time or not?).
- Generic ideas Musk/Mars (+ was I whooshed?).
- Explaining someone that there will be no trip to Mars.
- Clarifying that, without being too interested in any outside-earth option, the moon seems the only acceptable alternative.
Just in case you are still not getting it: I laughed a lot after reading those quotes (found particularly funny "The current situation is summed up in a Venn diagram" + “What we need to do is to move those circles together,” which seems to reflect the understanding of a 5yo) and was expecting other people to find them very funny too.
The paper outlines early designs of the gigantic spacecraft, designed to carry 100 passengers, that he hopes to construct.
the paper states. “We are talking about a lift-off thrust of 13,000 tons, so it will be quite tectonic when it takes off.”
The current situation is summed up in a Venn diagram
“What we need to do is to move those circles together,” Musk explains
the paper strikes a buoyant, even jocular tone and doesn’t get excessively bogged down in technical detail
It would be quite fun to be on Mars
The spaceship’s design is summed up as: “In some ways, it is not that complicated,”
“We have to figure out how to improve the cost of trips to Mars by five million percent”
Statistically speaking, is there a reliable way to win the lottery? Statistically speaking, does whatever Charlie's mom does
Short answer: completely, absolutely, definitively, certainly, undoubtedly NO.
Long answer: [please, put the short answer here] because statistics/maths (science, engineering, etc.) are just ways to allow our limited understanding to somehow get more insights into too complex-for-our-immediate-grasp realities. They are basically tools, enhancements, extensions which only can complement our much more comprehensive remaining knowledge. Blindly believing in the first misinterpreted (because even the tools are too complex for us and have to be used very carefully) output of such a secondary source and converting it into an absolute truth isn't just completely wrong, but even against the purpose of that tool which has been precisely built during many years by people expecting it to be used in a completely different way.
If a theory tells you that there is a way to accurately guess the result of winning the lottery or flipping a coin or any other event clearly defined as random by our remaining understanding of reality, you should review your theory by being completely sure that it is undoubtedly wrong (you drew the wrong conclusions, you misunderstood it, you applied it to the wrong context, etc.). You are free to show a different behaviour, but in that case you should stop calling what you do science/maths/engineering/etc. and start considering more adequate designations like political, philosophical, religious or similar.
I'm an empiricist
I would use other words to describe your behaviour and expectations, but you might feel offended by some of them and am not too concerned about meaningless labels. For what matters here, you represent pretty much the opposite of what I expect from a person wanting to have a conversation with me. So, I will once again say you bye (hopefully, I will be able to refrain myself from commenting to your next post!).
I haven't watched the video
It is about the It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode when Charlie's mom was repeating everything 3 times because of thinking that otherwise Charlie would die.
Or GitHub is too picky with the tab/spaces differences? I tend to use tabs (not something I really care about, but... I wish the worst to the Hooli-loving space heretics! LOL), but also in languages not caring about spaces/tabs (every language other than Python?) and IDEs which theoretically should take care of these issues automatically.
For example, when writing C# in Visual Studio, I don't even need to use tab/spaces (write a line of code, with 1-space separations between words, press enter and VS automatically sets the left indentation of the next line). If I want to change the default indentation, I use tabs. Same thing with other IDEs I use like NetBeans, Eclipse or Code::Blocks; I also use Notepad++ quite a lot and it seems to perform quite well on this front (it might not even provoke the problem which I am referring right now). But here comes the tricky part: when I upload a code created with one of these IDEs to GitHub, I usually get some files with random lines being wrongly indented, even though they look fine in the IDE. I think that this is provoked by the times when I paste in the given IDE code which I have written with a different program.
This isn't precisely a big deal, but kind of curious. Why is GitHub not getting what IDEs/editors get and even what the naked eye gets (if you edit one of these files in GitHub directly, let it looking fine and save it, the wrong-indentation might still be there; you have to remove all the lines not fully synchronised with the expected tabs/spaces)? Or even more important: why caring so much about spaces/tabs in programming languages pretty much ignoring that aspect and compiling fine regardless of this issue?