with a sensibly designed language, just about every editor out there can format code properly with a single keystroke. The only possible argument in favor of Pythons implicit blocks, forcing idiots to indent their code, is essentially meaningless.
Exactly, I'm a big fan of Python, despite the idiotic indent syntax. Really, who doesn't indent their code, and why should the rest of us be inconvenienced because of the very few unique snowflakes that have to be forced into indenting their code? It's a perfect example of the "cure is worse than the disease".
Been coding in C for 30yrs, python for about 5. Never had a problem with a C statement accidently falling out of a C statement block, had plenty of Python indent problems that change the logic flow. If you have delimiters you can spot (harmless) missing indents with the naked eye, when the indent is used as a delimiter how do you spot a (harmful) missing indent?
I like Python and use it regularly to automate builds, indents make the source easy to read but replacing block markers with indents was not a good idea since it make it easy for statements to fall outside the intended block.
I will never forget the feeling of riding a motorbike as fast as possible down a twisting mountain road, swapping the lead back and forth with another random madman on a bike. But that was almost 40yrs ago when I was young and bulletproof, something like this is probably as close as most people will get to that feeling.
I agree, YT was not a revolution in itself, it was just one of the fruits of the 1990's communications revolution. Like so many things YT is what you make of it, for instance I have used it mainly to listen to people such as Feynman, listen to long retired/dead politicians, listen to music I already know. I've never heard of the YT music awards. My front page is filled with pages I have subscribed to, the YT recommendations are nearly always related to something I recently watched, if YT can't figure out who I am then of course it will feed me Taylor Swift and the Kardashians (or whoever happens to be popular at the time).
Having said that, I think people are misinterpreting "The revolution will not be televised", it's a well known phrase from the 70's, it comes from a poem/song that expresses the same concerns expressed in your post (ie: the 0.01% will control what you see and hear, they will not allow a political revolution to propagate via mass media). I think the phrase itself was inspired by another phrase from the late 60's The whole world is watching, was a chant that erupted from a crowd of protesters that were attacked by the riot police in front of TV cameras. It subsequently became a well known slogan of the anti-war movement, the establishment angst about filming police "at work" still persists to this day but mandatory police body-cams are slowly changing that attitude.
A SWAT raid seems a tad excessive but I assume you're posting from the US, so who knows? However, there's good public health reasons for banning the sale of raw milk, nobody is banning foolhardy and ignorant nature nuts drinking it straight from the cow, they are stopping people from profiting from the ignorance of others. Pasteurising milk is simply the act of boiling the milk to kill the nasties (such as tuberculosis), it used to be called "scalding the milk" before anyone figured out why it worked. Homogenised simply means the cream and milk have been mixed in such a way that the cream no longer rises to the top. The problem I have with supermarket milk here in Oz is that virtually every one of the countless different types have something added or removed, ie: it's not milk. It can actually take quite some time to find plain old full cream milk in a supermarket, if it's there at all.
The "average" is supposedly $2.5B, that doesn't mean they all cost that much (or little), the money is mainly spent on clinical trials. Part of the problem is that many countries (including mine) rely heavily on the FDA, they take the fruit of the trials for free. The problem with LSD in particular is that it is on the wrong side of the drug war. Adults should be free to take whatever drugs they want and should not be forced to have vaccines.
However consumers should be held responsible for their decisions when it affects others, being drunk or stoned should not a mitigating factor when you wipe out a family with a car, it should be an aggravating factor as DUI is now. Same goes for people who sell the drugs, those who repeatedly make false or baseless claims about medicine for personal gain should, at the very least, be stripped of all assets and condemned to minimum wage for the rest of their lives.
Yes there are rare scenarios where the style has it's uses in C/C++ but the example given is not one of them, a simple return would suffice and be easier to follow. Very deep nesting is the only scenario where I would contemplate using this assembly language style in a high level language, but deep nesting is often a symptom of poorly designed data structures.
In the given example a 'return' in place of the 'goto' is more efficient (one less JMP), it's also less reading for others who might come after you. The "one return statement per function" style is not 'wrong' but it's more appropriate in assembly code than it is in higher level languages. Multiple returns in an assembly routine can be hard to see when reading since assembly is not typically indented, so the reader loses a valuable hint to the flow of the code. Doing the same thing in C/C++ typically just introduces unnecessary jumps for both the CPU and the human reader.
I've seen that style before, the "rule" is to only have one return statement per function, I think blindly following that rule produces ugly, convoluted, code, especially when it goes to maintenance mode where the rule will inevitably be broken. The problem in a nutshell is that it breaks the #1 coding commandment - As simple as possible, but no simpler.
You don't need to touch type to be productive as a software dev. I'm in my 50's and can't touch type to save my life, it has not been a problem for the last 25yrs. I have never been asked about it at interviews and I have no problem keeping up with the work. I'm not the only older dev in Oz who can't type, during the 70's boys were often not allowed to learn typing at school since "only girls grow up to be typists". When I went to uni as a mature age student in the late 80's it was simply assumed everyone could touch type. Touch typing was not taught as part of my degree (or any other CS degree I've heard of) for the reason the GP stated - it's an insignificant skill for the purpose of writing code and since I can peck away with 2-4 fingers at ~35wpm it would be a complete waste of my time (and my employer's money) to start learning it now.
you need to look at tensorial maths and the metric of spacetime
OP here, I have a math degree, I know what a tensor is and that's why I said "I have never heard the reasoning for that claim beyond the "maths says it's a singularity". Sure maths has a uncanny ability to describe the universe but at the end of the day you need observations to separate the various answers that come from maths.
Maths told us that space and time are bendable, the universe is expanding, and the possible existence of black holes, none were fully accepted until their respective predictions were observed in nature. As a personal example, when I went to school in the 60's black holes were widely regarded as nothing more than a "mathematical curiosity".
Stuff inside the black hole is still falling INTO the black hole.
Again we haven't seen inside black hole, we just assume the math is describing reality and AFAIK it's still math that has to change if it doesn't agree with nature. What if the space inside the black hole expands, faster and faster, like we observe in our own black hole,,,err,,,universe. My speculation here is that the stuff that's falling in is converted to space-time and energy, what matter remains after falling in will never catch up with the stuff that fell in before it. The singularity never forms, the surface area of the BH is constant, it's volume is expanding indefinitely, everything is moving AWAY from everything else
Having said that, I totally agree, maths degree or not, I don't have the skills to tackle those ideas with math, and at 55 I'm unlikely to "pick it up" either formally or informally.
Somebody doing a good delivery is what is required. That is much easier to find than the creative idea behind the show.
Yes he is acting, but he's certainly not your average "news reader" reading everything from the autocue, it is HIS act, we have similar act here in Oz, but Stewart is the original and still the best. Aside from the ad-lib involved in his act, I'm pretty sure he would have full veto power over the script and who in the "creative pool" should be hired and fired. IMO he's the smartest and funniest act to come out of the US in a very long time, a true "jester" in the original medieval sense of the word. If people who can pull that off are a dime a dozen where you live, I want to move there.
Philosophically we are faced with two explanations, neither of which we can comprehend in a physical sense, ie: infinity or nothing. Personally I find nothing a lot harder to imagine than infinity, even though I clearly did not exist before I was born.
It's assumed there is a singularity at the core of every black hole, and because cosmic censorship won't allow us to observe it, it will probably always remain an assumption based on what the math says. I've heard it said that our our universe is definitely not the inside of a black hole but I have never heard the reasoning for that claim beyond the "maths says it's a singularity". As with a black hole, light cannot escape our visible universe and the inflationary period embedded in the BBT could be interpreted as the initial collapse into a black hole, ie: I like to speculate that it's black holes all the way down (and up, sideways, etc). Matter, space-time, and energy, are at some level different forms of the same thing, squeeze matter hard and it turns to energy, maybe if we squeeze it even harder (as in a black hole) it turns into space-time? As I say, it's speculation and there may be other reasons why a singularity is the default assumption.
The only "problem" a really shitty cable will cause for digital data is the maximum throughput will be slower due to error correction/detection re-sending lots of packets that didn't make it to the other end intact. This is what is meant when they say a comms protocol (such as tcp/ip) has "guaranteed packet delivery". At the file/audio-buffer level the packet was either faithfully copied across the cable or it wasn't. 1's and 0's do not suffer from "distortion", packets with flipped bit errors are either corrected using the EC bits, or dropped and resent. This is why no sound comes out if a CD is too badly scratched for the ECC to work, it's "all or nothing", there is no fuzzy middle ground.
If the cable is dropping packets due to industrial strength interference it's unlikely wi-fi would work at all in the same environment. The "cables don't matter" in the sense that if the data gets to the other end it will be an exact replica of the original, that's what error detection/correction is for, that's why the cable "drops packets". The only solution for strong interference is stronger shielding.
I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination but I agree that speakers are where you should spend the bucks if you want good sound. Bigger is not always better, but heavier usually is.
Slashdot Mirror
it means your coding skills are lacking.
Wow, my hubris meter just exploded.
with a sensibly designed language, just about every editor out there can format code properly with a single keystroke. The only possible argument in favor of Pythons implicit blocks, forcing idiots to indent their code, is essentially meaningless.
Exactly, I'm a big fan of Python, despite the idiotic indent syntax. Really, who doesn't indent their code, and why should the rest of us be inconvenienced because of the very few unique snowflakes that have to be forced into indenting their code? It's a perfect example of the "cure is worse than the disease".
Been coding in C for 30yrs, python for about 5. Never had a problem with a C statement accidently falling out of a C statement block, had plenty of Python indent problems that change the logic flow. If you have delimiters you can spot (harmless) missing indents with the naked eye, when the indent is used as a delimiter how do you spot a (harmful) missing indent?
I like Python and use it regularly to automate builds, indents make the source easy to read but replacing block markers with indents was not a good idea since it make it easy for statements to fall outside the intended block.
What i cant understand is cycling down a nuclear facility because you're worried about power supplied from external source
Does the phrase "fail safe" ring any bells?
How does using FF stop bad weather from taking out transmission lines?
So, they're spending an average of 0.016% of their income on lobbying.
Revenue is not profit.
I will never forget the feeling of riding a motorbike as fast as possible down a twisting mountain road, swapping the lead back and forth with another random madman on a bike. But that was almost 40yrs ago when I was young and bulletproof, something like this is probably as close as most people will get to that feeling.
I agree, YT was not a revolution in itself, it was just one of the fruits of the 1990's communications revolution. Like so many things YT is what you make of it, for instance I have used it mainly to listen to people such as Feynman, listen to long retired/dead politicians, listen to music I already know. I've never heard of the YT music awards. My front page is filled with pages I have subscribed to, the YT recommendations are nearly always related to something I recently watched, if YT can't figure out who I am then of course it will feed me Taylor Swift and the Kardashians (or whoever happens to be popular at the time).
Having said that, I think people are misinterpreting "The revolution will not be televised", it's a well known phrase from the 70's, it comes from a poem/song that expresses the same concerns expressed in your post (ie: the 0.01% will control what you see and hear, they will not allow a political revolution to propagate via mass media). I think the phrase itself was inspired by another phrase from the late 60's The whole world is watching, was a chant that erupted from a crowd of protesters that were attacked by the riot police in front of TV cameras. It subsequently became a well known slogan of the anti-war movement, the establishment angst about filming police "at work" still persists to this day but mandatory police body-cams are slowly changing that attitude.
If you like the dark ages, move to Iraq.
Lemme guess - Zoloft?
A SWAT raid seems a tad excessive but I assume you're posting from the US, so who knows? However, there's good public health reasons for banning the sale of raw milk, nobody is banning foolhardy and ignorant nature nuts drinking it straight from the cow, they are stopping people from profiting from the ignorance of others. Pasteurising milk is simply the act of boiling the milk to kill the nasties (such as tuberculosis), it used to be called "scalding the milk" before anyone figured out why it worked. Homogenised simply means the cream and milk have been mixed in such a way that the cream no longer rises to the top. The problem I have with supermarket milk here in Oz is that virtually every one of the countless different types have something added or removed, ie: it's not milk. It can actually take quite some time to find plain old full cream milk in a supermarket, if it's there at all.
The "average" is supposedly $2.5B, that doesn't mean they all cost that much (or little), the money is mainly spent on clinical trials. Part of the problem is that many countries (including mine) rely heavily on the FDA, they take the fruit of the trials for free. The problem with LSD in particular is that it is on the wrong side of the drug war. Adults should be free to take whatever drugs they want and should not be forced to have vaccines.
However consumers should be held responsible for their decisions when it affects others, being drunk or stoned should not a mitigating factor when you wipe out a family with a car, it should be an aggravating factor as DUI is now. Same goes for people who sell the drugs, those who repeatedly make false or baseless claims about medicine for personal gain should, at the very least, be stripped of all assets and condemned to minimum wage for the rest of their lives.
Yes there are rare scenarios where the style has it's uses in C/C++ but the example given is not one of them, a simple return would suffice and be easier to follow. Very deep nesting is the only scenario where I would contemplate using this assembly language style in a high level language, but deep nesting is often a symptom of poorly designed data structures.
In the given example a 'return' in place of the 'goto' is more efficient (one less JMP), it's also less reading for others who might come after you. The "one return statement per function" style is not 'wrong' but it's more appropriate in assembly code than it is in higher level languages. Multiple returns in an assembly routine can be hard to see when reading since assembly is not typically indented, so the reader loses a valuable hint to the flow of the code. Doing the same thing in C/C++ typically just introduces unnecessary jumps for both the CPU and the human reader.
I've seen that style before, the "rule" is to only have one return statement per function, I think blindly following that rule produces ugly, convoluted, code, especially when it goes to maintenance mode where the rule will inevitably be broken. The problem in a nutshell is that it breaks the #1 coding commandment - As simple as possible, but no simpler.
You don't need to touch type to be productive as a software dev. I'm in my 50's and can't touch type to save my life, it has not been a problem for the last 25yrs. I have never been asked about it at interviews and I have no problem keeping up with the work. I'm not the only older dev in Oz who can't type, during the 70's boys were often not allowed to learn typing at school since "only girls grow up to be typists". When I went to uni as a mature age student in the late 80's it was simply assumed everyone could touch type. Touch typing was not taught as part of my degree (or any other CS degree I've heard of) for the reason the GP stated - it's an insignificant skill for the purpose of writing code and since I can peck away with 2-4 fingers at ~35wpm it would be a complete waste of my time (and my employer's money) to start learning it now.
Thanks for the link, nice to know someone else has the same daydreams and questions. :)
you need to look at tensorial maths and the metric of spacetime
OP here, I have a math degree, I know what a tensor is and that's why I said "I have never heard the reasoning for that claim beyond the "maths says it's a singularity". Sure maths has a uncanny ability to describe the universe but at the end of the day you need observations to separate the various answers that come from maths.
Maths told us that space and time are bendable, the universe is expanding, and the possible existence of black holes, none were fully accepted until their respective predictions were observed in nature. As a personal example, when I went to school in the 60's black holes were widely regarded as nothing more than a "mathematical curiosity".
Stuff inside the black hole is still falling INTO the black hole.
Again we haven't seen inside black hole, we just assume the math is describing reality and AFAIK it's still math that has to change if it doesn't agree with nature. What if the space inside the black hole expands, faster and faster, like we observe in our own black hole,,,err,,,universe. My speculation here is that the stuff that's falling in is converted to space-time and energy, what matter remains after falling in will never catch up with the stuff that fell in before it. The singularity never forms, the surface area of the BH is constant, it's volume is expanding indefinitely, everything is moving AWAY from everything else
Having said that, I totally agree, maths degree or not, I don't have the skills to tackle those ideas with math, and at 55 I'm unlikely to "pick it up" either formally or informally.
Somebody doing a good delivery is what is required. That is much easier to find than the creative idea behind the show.
Yes he is acting, but he's certainly not your average "news reader" reading everything from the autocue, it is HIS act, we have similar act here in Oz, but Stewart is the original and still the best. Aside from the ad-lib involved in his act, I'm pretty sure he would have full veto power over the script and who in the "creative pool" should be hired and fired. IMO he's the smartest and funniest act to come out of the US in a very long time, a true "jester" in the original medieval sense of the word. If people who can pull that off are a dime a dozen where you live, I want to move there.
Philosophically we are faced with two explanations, neither of which we can comprehend in a physical sense, ie: infinity or nothing. Personally I find nothing a lot harder to imagine than infinity, even though I clearly did not exist before I was born.
It's assumed there is a singularity at the core of every black hole, and because cosmic censorship won't allow us to observe it, it will probably always remain an assumption based on what the math says. I've heard it said that our our universe is definitely not the inside of a black hole but I have never heard the reasoning for that claim beyond the "maths says it's a singularity". As with a black hole, light cannot escape our visible universe and the inflationary period embedded in the BBT could be interpreted as the initial collapse into a black hole, ie: I like to speculate that it's black holes all the way down (and up, sideways, etc). Matter, space-time, and energy, are at some level different forms of the same thing, squeeze matter hard and it turns to energy, maybe if we squeeze it even harder (as in a black hole) it turns into space-time? As I say, it's speculation and there may be other reasons why a singularity is the default assumption.
The only "problem" a really shitty cable will cause for digital data is the maximum throughput will be slower due to error correction/detection re-sending lots of packets that didn't make it to the other end intact. This is what is meant when they say a comms protocol (such as tcp/ip) has "guaranteed packet delivery". At the file/audio-buffer level the packet was either faithfully copied across the cable or it wasn't. 1's and 0's do not suffer from "distortion", packets with flipped bit errors are either corrected using the EC bits, or dropped and resent. This is why no sound comes out if a CD is too badly scratched for the ECC to work, it's "all or nothing", there is no fuzzy middle ground.
If the cable is dropping packets due to industrial strength interference it's unlikely wi-fi would work at all in the same environment. The "cables don't matter" in the sense that if the data gets to the other end it will be an exact replica of the original, that's what error detection/correction is for, that's why the cable "drops packets". The only solution for strong interference is stronger shielding.
I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination but I agree that speakers are where you should spend the bucks if you want good sound. Bigger is not always better, but heavier usually is.