I assume you're joking, Either way. One morning when I took the bus to work the bus driver had repeated problems getting the bus to start due to the breathalyser. I heard him complain to the passenger behind him, about it malfunctioning. The passenger volunteered to test this theory, by also blowing into the device. The driver handed him the hose, the passenger gave it a go, the bus started, and the driver shrugged his shoulders, and off we went, only slightly delayed.
It seems perfectly plausible to me that the economic incentives are such that there is no need to "design" any of this, no smoke-filled back room needed.
I wonder why round-trip is such a small concern for people implementing serializers/deserializers of various kinds.
I usually throw in an "Unknown" node type, which stores things unaltered until I can understand things again. The parsers I usually write are very small, so I haven't seen what issues comes up at scale, maybe there are dragons lurking .
No, in logic that is a vacuous truth.
All my hats is true for zero hats. But that would not be a lie. And since the liar always lies, that can not be case.
I used to have lucid dreams regularly until I was 17, until I told a friend and never had a "real" one since. I am not sure if it is connected.
I mostly used it to avoid nightmares as a child, unfortunately after a while, I got psychological nightmares instead. Waking up multiple times within a dream (There is no Limbo from Inception for me) with something really stressful having happened (dead body under the bed and police knocking on the door, it's just a dream there are no police, but the body is there, type stuff).
I still have partially aware lucid-dreams occationally.
> These include statements before super(…), which would give developers greater freedom in expressing constructor behavior – meaning string templates. This would make it easy to express strings that include values computed at run time – meaning scoped values. This would enable sharing of immutable data within and across threads; and implicitly declared classes and instance main methods.
I don't like the restriction on code before super. But I don't have a clue what they are referring to here. The code example doesn't use a template either.
PositiveBigInteger(long value) {
if (value <= 0)
new IllegalArgumentException("non-positive value");
super(value);
}
I am not a mathematician but have some interest on a pop-sci level.
I believe this presentation at G-Research by Alex Davies would be of interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp_skPK-X9M
Where I used to work we allowed duplicate email addresses in the user table for legacy reasons, but we did not want any new entered in the db, so we ran a "select distinct email from users where email = ?" query before creation of new users. I don't think we had more than a 100 rows with the same email though. Most of the duplicates were test users which could have been removed, but I digress.
Anyone have some insight into why RISC-V seems to be getting traction?
Has there not been prior attempts to make an open source cpu?
Is there a lot of skill in making the ISA? It seems to me (naively) that most talented EE students could probably come up with their own ISA, or is there some "magic" in the RISC-V one?
I assume that there are a reference implementations in VHDL/Verilog and Cadence and good support in compilers. Is this what pushed through, where others failed?
Really?
If Microsoft disappeared we would see a massive jump in Linux and Mac usage.
If Facebook/Instagram people would jump on the next social fad.
If Amazon disappears people would buy there stuff from some BigBox store.
If AWS disappears that would be really painful for a while before people adopt.
On the other hand.
If Tesla disappears all the competitors will keep milking their ICE cars, since none of there EV make any profit.
If Starlink disappears Ukraine is fucked, yes even if Elon has secretly given Putin access to all the satellites or whatever is the rumor of the day.
I think they made the right trade-off, back in the 90s on hardware that could barely run the game, sticking extra defensive checks to make sure you have not accidentally clipped through the geometry, or simpler ones like making sure you are not running too fast, seems excessive.
They weren't coding for some NASA space probe and they knew it.
>The whole goal was flexibility in programming, and trying to push as much of the programming capabilities up to the game developer level rather than having them have to go into the engine as we could, and decoupling graphics and so forth to the point where you could keep extending the graphical capabilities.
I was under the impression that this was not the case, and that the reason Sierra games run poorly on Amiga/Atari was that they could not use the custom chips in those machines.
Compared to the Lucasarts interpreter that ran really well on all kinds of hardware, and even allowed the switching of old-school graphics to special-edition to be easily implemented.
There are still those that take a loan, they will need to pay the higher interest. As long as there is a balance there will not need to be money printed.
Is that what they did? Last reports suggests StarLink works just fine inside Ukraine with some congestion issues.
My impression is that Ukraine bolted StarLink dishes to offensive drones, possibly the remote controlled boats that struck Sevastopol. Personally I am a hawk on the Ukraine War and hope they utterly destroys the Russian Military, that includes the one inside Russia.
But I find it deeply hypocritical that the US Military, who won't let Ukraine use the weapons given inside Russia, has a problem with a private company who does not want their civilian tech used in offensive weapons.
I'm not sure if this is preventable.