Eh. Your construction is perhaps easier to understand if you've never used the language, and are trying to learn it just by reading arbitrary source code. But who writes code for such a person?
You might as well spell out:
int iterator;
for (iterator = ...
But everybody uses 'i', because it's faster and simpler, takes less time to read, and doesn't fill up your screen so that surrounding elements can be easily associated (e.g. a[i].do(x) vs myArray[iterator].doCoreFunction(element_x) <- yuck)
> Second: Six months, you say? Can any of us think of a cohort of job seekers that routinely needs to contend with 6+ month employment gaps? I wonder, maybe, just maybe, do you think that has a powerful "objective" stigma attached to it disproportionately often might find it difficult to compete equitably in the job market? I wonder which 50% of the population I might ask to find out more about this.
Oh, wait, you mean women? For a most of that rant I thought you meant ex-convicts, because there is definitely an objective stigma against them (and they're certainly out of the job market). Now that I think about it, it's possible that the amount of ex-cons in the 6-month+ unemployment bracket, plus maybe ex-mental-institution or ex-rehab individuals, is significant enough to skew the results. The original paper doesn't address this, at least not that I can see.
They wouldn't even need to trade securities. Just search the future data for some successful tech IPOs and then invest in those companies early and heavily. Returns would be fantastic, and the risk of feedback from your future-influenced actions would be much lower.
My question is, what are you doing 'enjoy[ing] things that you can buy with money'? Hasn't it been well enough established that things don't make you happy? The Greeks figured that out two thousand years ago, guy!
Let me tell you, I bought a used car just this year and I appreciate it way more because I didn't bankrupt myself to do so.
This sheds some light on this comment about the pawns: '(Move "forward" indicated in white.)' The 2006 picture has white lines and this new one doesn't.
This argues equally well for completely supporting the family indefinitely for any reason. The only difference between paying medical bills and paying for the whole lifestyle is a matter of cost, and medical bills can be really expensive.
Doesn't it bother you that an even-handed application of this principle leads to absurdity?
But then you can easily, heck trivially, argue that people should be forced to exercise or to eat a particular diet that makes them more productive. Look, more goods and services are rendered! It's a public situation!
People should be forced to live within 5 miles of work, because they're not being productive during their commute. Also, HackerNews and reddit should be forcibly taken down because of their contribution to idleness at work.
"Thank you for your placing an order with NASDAQ. Please do not hit the back button or refresh this page, or your order may be registered more than once."
Hold on. I might have misread, but I thought the point was he -didn't lie-. He put 'Mensa' because he was in Mensa. It stood out because so many other people had an 'education' section at that spot on their resumes.
If the universe is infinite in size, does that automatically imply that it is infinite in mass?
That is, I can imagine a mass distribution that decreases as it moves away from the center, such that the total amount of mass is finite. In which case these problems don't apply.
I'm not sure whether that's possible though. If space-time is flat, that means there's a specific mass density in that universe, in which case infinite mass exists. For an infinite universe to have finite mass would mean a density that tends to zero, in which case we should observe a saddle shape in the experiments described. That is, unless space is just -locally- (in 14.6 billion light years) flat.
I don't claim to be right. But, you can use this possibility to ease your existential dread at being one of infinitely many near-identical copies. Of course you still have to deal with many-world quantum physics...
This isn't a test for suitability for the position. It's a matter of signalling.
This is a cheap test (surely can't take more than 5 minutes to complete a grammar test), but with the property that the only candidates who will -fail- it are candidates unsuitable for hiring. Since the author gives no statistics, we can only assume that enough people are weeded out to make it worthwhile.
It's much the same as a FizzBuzz test. I certainly don't feel offended if I'm given such a test at an interview, I just smile and do it.
It's an interesting point about the speed. In this case, since it's just a function pointer, there's no polymorphic overhead, so avoiding branches is a no-brainer.
On the other hand, if you were actually extending a class to make a DoNothingClass version, then the overhead of dynamic binding plus the function call would make it somewhat slower (branch prediction on a NULL comparison will cost at most 5 clock cycles in a single-thread pipeline, or none if you predict right) on those checks where the DoNothingClass is the one you find. For instance, if you had a sparse array of Class* and wanted to iterate over them, the NULL check would probably be more efficient than pointers to a singleton NullClass, especially since branch prediction will start correctly predicting NULLs more often.
I'm not clear on how that makes your code more maintainable though. The first case makes it explicit that any of the actions can fail to occur, whereas the second one, on first glance, seems to have all the actions occuring. I, as a newcomer to this code, will almost definitely make that mistake, which will make debugging or maintenance harder.
The only way the second is even -as good- is if I'm constantly holding in my mind the various idioms you've used in the code, in this case that your function pointers are never null but will instead refer to an action that might do nothing. As far as I can tell, this is more work for me, for no gain.
I would love to hear your reasoning why this way of doing it is -better-, as opposed to just -more object oriented- (or -marginally less typing-).
So all the clever people have concluded that this system is useless, because you can pull a gun on someone and force them to play the game. Not to mention: it's not even that much entropy! So let's all just forget about it move on with our lives, right?
No. Of course not. What this system provides is a unique -extra- method of authentication. I really doubt this is meant for putting this on your laptop in place of a password scheme. But you might use something like it as part of multi-factor authentication, e.g. into a secure facility. Remember all those movies where somebody's eyeballs are removed/replaced/copied in order to fool a retina scanner? I can't comment on how plausible that is, but I can certainly tell that if it were this system, they could not have broken it, period. I think that's pretty useful don't you?
If my friend grows tomatoes in her back yard, should I be prohibited and fined for eating one without it first being inspected?
Inspections are there because large institutions don't always take the care they should, and as a consumer I sure as hell want -somebody- to look into it. If it weren't a government institution then I'd expect some sort of company to do it, and any restaurant that hadn't gotten inspected I would avoid.
On the other hand I -don't- worry when I use Air-BnB, because it has reviews that signify quality, and because there's not much that can go wrong with sleeping on a couch.
You might as well spell out:
int iterator; for (iterator = ...
But everybody uses 'i', because it's faster and simpler, takes less time to read, and doesn't fill up your screen so that surrounding elements can be easily associated (e.g. a[i].do(x) vs myArray[iterator].doCoreFunction(element_x) <- yuck)