That's not "premature optimization", that's unsafe, bug-producing optimization, which is definitely wrong, but, again, is just not what Knuth was talking about in that statement. "Premature" in this context means "before you've profiled your code", not "before you're sure it's safe to add to your compiler".
Those man-page disclaimers are often there because some user complained that they couldn't get gcc to give them whatever super-optimized thing that was valid for their own program but not safe in general, so the gcc people said "ok, take it, but don't come back to us when it breaks code". If one of the built-in opt levels like -O3 turns those on, that's wrong. If it exists, but the user has to ask for it explicitly, well, the man page warning speaks truly.
It is certainly possible to write a simple, crappy compiler. In reality, optimizing compilers are, yes, complex, because users will not accept the simple, crappy compiler output, and getting the best possible output is hard. There are multiple optimization problems in any compiler, and some of them fight each other.
And that Knuth quote applies to users prematurely optimizing their specific source code before seeing where the time actually is; compiler people have to figure out how to optimize all code in the world with the same compiler. It just doesn't apply to that situation.
The name change is because "Spooks" is an old-fashioned racial slur in the US. By old-fashioned, I mean plenty of white people don't even know it exists, which doesn't mean black people don't know it exists. "MI-5" is certainly clearer, anyway.
I never say stuff like this, but: if they really want to be more like a 1980s family maybe these parents of a 5-year-old and a 2-year-old should be married?..wait, I just read more of TFA. They moved into their current house BECAUSE it was built in the 1980s? Jesus. The father has a mullet, and so the kids.
Oh come on, this is some kind of trolling lifestyle.
Well, I'd say that "From who did you get that?" is still wrong, even with "whom" becoming less used. But "Who did you get that from?" -- which is the more-likely alternative -- sounds ok, vs "Whom did you get that from?", which I'd never say. (Which all runs into "don't end a sentence with a preposition", but that's another -- but related -- matter,)
NO. There are people who like to say this but it's crap. Usually there's a more explicit reference to Clarke's Third Law. But from Clarke's point, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" you can't conclude that "Any writing about magic is really writing about technology". Literary genres are a matter of tropes and reader expectations.
You mean like the fact that you can transfer your wireless number to a new carrier, because of government (FCC) control? That one worked out pretty good.
My experience with Comcast from last year: before I got my newest TiVo I picked up an M-card from my local office. It came in a sleeve with a paper listing the procedure for getting it working in the TiVo, including the step "and now call us at this dedicated number where we have people who actually know what to do with a cable card." So I did, and it worked perfectly first time. Moral: sometimes, things do work.
"...the encounter could create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that's a worst-case scenario."
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think hindsight would be better than 20/20, really.
That's not "premature optimization", that's unsafe, bug-producing optimization, which is definitely wrong, but, again, is just not what Knuth was talking about in that statement. "Premature" in this context means "before you've profiled your code", not "before you're sure it's safe to add to your compiler".
Those man-page disclaimers are often there because some user complained that they couldn't get gcc to give them whatever super-optimized thing that was valid for their own program but not safe in general, so the gcc people said "ok, take it, but don't come back to us when it breaks code". If one of the built-in opt levels like -O3 turns those on, that's wrong. If it exists, but the user has to ask for it explicitly, well, the man page warning speaks truly.
It is certainly possible to write a simple, crappy compiler. In reality, optimizing compilers are, yes, complex, because users will not accept the simple, crappy compiler output, and getting the best possible output is hard. There are multiple optimization problems in any compiler, and some of them fight each other.
And that Knuth quote applies to users prematurely optimizing their specific source code before seeing where the time actually is; compiler people have to figure out how to optimize all code in the world with the same compiler. It just doesn't apply to that situation.
Ooh, I bet I know Connie's last name!
Which "cupcake business" is that? I found a couple of possible instances but both businesses are still there.
The name change is because "Spooks" is an old-fashioned racial slur in the US. By old-fashioned, I mean plenty of white people don't even know it exists, which doesn't mean black people don't know it exists. "MI-5" is certainly clearer, anyway.
I never say stuff like this, but: if they really want to be more like a 1980s family maybe these parents of a 5-year-old and a 2-year-old should be married? ..wait, I just read more of TFA. They moved into their current house BECAUSE it was built in the 1980s? Jesus. The father has a mullet, and so the kids.
Oh come on, this is some kind of trolling lifestyle.
Well, I'd say that "From who did you get that?" is still wrong, even with "whom" becoming less used. But "Who did you get that from?" -- which is the more-likely alternative -- sounds ok, vs "Whom did you get that from?", which I'd never say. (Which all runs into "don't end a sentence with a preposition", but that's another -- but related -- matter,)
Don't worry, you'll be losing your near-distance vision sooner than you think, and then you'll enjoy a nice big screen across the room from you.
NO. There are people who like to say this but it's crap. Usually there's a more explicit reference to Clarke's Third Law. But from Clarke's point, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" you can't conclude that "Any writing about magic is really writing about technology". Literary genres are a matter of tropes and reader expectations.
You mean like the fact that you can transfer your wireless number to a new carrier, because of government (FCC) control? That one worked out pretty good.
See the current Time-Warner Cable vs. CBS dispute to understand why that's not happening.
I'm in the Boston area, and I don't think we even have TWC around here. It's mostly Comcast with some RCN and Verizon.
And "apple speech recognition" takes on a new meaning.
Those alerts aren't phone calls, so you don't answer them. (Well, maybe at 4AM I might be too confused...) The phone just beeps REALLY LOUDLY.
Night school, I presume, since the shooting happened a little after 7PM.
Or FaceTime, so you can tell them what to do and show you the result.
My experience with Comcast from last year: before I got my newest TiVo I picked up an M-card from my local office. It came in a sleeve with a paper listing the procedure for getting it working in the TiVo, including the step "and now call us at this dedicated number where we have people who actually know what to do with a cable card." So I did, and it worked perfectly first time. Moral: sometimes, things do work.
One heart each.
Sadly, I think that is their job.
35 pounds, not dollars, aka (right now) $53.
His point, though, is that it's never "snacks or jobs"; it's "first we cut snacks, then when that doesn't save enough money we cut jobs".
How you avoided the words "you insensitive clod' is beyond me.
And if you succeed, you've broken the various laws against logging into web sites without authorization.
"...the encounter could create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that's a worst-case scenario."