HN user

X0Refraction

104 karma
Posts0
Comments43
View on HN
No posts found.

Why though? What do you gain other than longer stacktraces with all those wrappers? People always trot out some theoretical notion that a caller is going to catch that framework's different exceptions and handle them differently, but have you ever seen calling code that actually did that?

You've never seen a try that has more than 1 catch block for different exception types?

There are many different kinds of values. There really aren't that many different kinds of error - there's "transient error that you might want to retry", "programmer called the API wrong", and that's about it, most other cases (like bad user input) probably shouldn't be exceptions.

Do you think bad user input should be a result type? Because exceptions are essentially the same thing.

You've hit on a couple of problems with exceptions in Java though. The first is I think the default for checked exceptions should be no stack trace. As the designer of the method you've left it to the caller to decide to handle it or not, if they choose to turn it into an unchecked exception then I believe that is where the stack trace should start from. Assuming there's enough context in the checked exception the designer of the method gave you everything you needed to handle it so why do we need to capture that part of the stack trace? If it ends up getting logged the source of the issue was where it was changed to an unchecked exception.

The other issue comes down to usability. Try catch blocks aren't expressions so if you want to default something in the case of a checked exception it's a lot of low information density lines. Converting to an unchecked exception is also more ceremony than it really needs to be, but there's not really a reason why it couldn't be made simpler with some syntax sugar.

Why would the law being different mean they wouldn't use 3DS though? Surely it'd cut out a good amount of fraud along with the realtime monitoring? I understand that US consumers don't have a stake in this, but can't all the banks just agree to enforce 3DS? I can't imagine Americans are going to stop using their cards because of a small amount of friction added

Being a burden on the healthcare system in a country that has nationalised healthcare is being a burden on everyone through increased taxes and reduced spending in areas the money could be more useful.

Those erratic behaviours you talk about are generally illegal in most countries as well with drink driving, public intoxication, assault laws etc.

Drinking does have some positives as well, pubs are one of the few third spaces we have remaining. I know there are alternatives, but there are people who won't socialise in a cafe or a book club, but will go to the pub to see the regulars. Considering lots of Western countries have loneliness epidemics I think there'd be a downside to removing that option.

Drinking does seem to lubricate social situations, weed can help with pain etc. The only upside from smoking for the individual as far as I can tell is that it fixes the problem it created from you being addicted to it i.e. you get calmer when you get your fix.

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that they're a different degree of societal problem. I think there's quite a few people who drink on special occasions, but not every week or even every month (I'm one of them).

I think it's very rare though for a smoker to not smoke several a day. A friend of mine was that rare breed and would buy a 10 pack occasionally - usually on a Friday and it'd be gone by Monday - but that would maybe be once a month. I think every other smoker I've met though goes through that amount every day.

So it seems to me the average smoker is much more likely to become a burden on a nationalised health service than the average drinker. There's more to this of course, smoking to excess generally doesn't increase the chances of you getting into a fight like drinking does for some people, but social pressure counters that partially too.

This was linked from the top comment on the Rust subreddit: https://wiki.alopex.li/LetsBeRealAboutDependencies

I think it makes a good point that some of the difference here is just perception due to dependencies in C/C++ being less immediately visible since they're dynamically loaded. To some degree that is a plus though as you likely trust the maintainers of your OS distribution to provide stable, supported libraries.

As other commenters have said, perhaps this is an area where the Rust maintainers could provide some kind of extended standard library where they don't guarantee backwards compatibility forever, but do provide guarantees about ongoing fixes for security issues.

This is a common complaint, but I think the controls are actually very tight. Usually the issue is that the player is struggling with travelling in a vacuum with a ship that can quickly get up to tens of thousands of km/h and it's very difficult to judge distances in space. I realise you're unlikely to go back if you've read a story synopsis, but for anyone else I would highly suggest locking on to your target and using the two numbers (your current speed relative to the object and the distance from the object) to judge how hot you're coming in.

It's not mandatory, there's 1 part in Dark Bramble where you can go a little faster if you use a very small amount of thrust. You can just use the momentum you came in on though, there's still plenty of time

There are signs that the blackout will have an affect on their bottomline if it's kept up [1]. I'd imagine that's why they're making these moves to remove moderators participating in the blackout so quickly. I think it'll be interesting to see if they can find other moderators who participate for free and bring as much value to reddit as the current mods do.

My guess is that the changes will still go ahead and the general quality of content on reddit will go down longer term although how much is an open question.

[1] https://www.adweek.com/social-marketing/ripples-through-redd...

I realise the UK is starting in one of the worst positions for house price pressure, but it does seem to be a general trend in all Western countries. My point is that it seems like my potential children would need to work harder to get the same level of basic necessities. It might be getting tougher more slowly in some countries than others, but that doesn't meet the criterion I feel is necessary of mostly getting better for most people.

Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I meant housing as in a place to live regardless of if that's achieved via ownership or renting. Both are getting more expensive compared to median wage as we build less than the increase in population. I didn't think that was a uniquely British phenomenon, but I'd be happy to learn otherwise.

If you grew up with $50M+ and lived a luxurious life, but lost it all, would you not have children over worries they may not have the same standard of living that you did?

I'd agree there's nuance to this. For your cherry picked scenario, no, that wouldn't affect my decision. I can accept a single person having a reduction in living standards. However, when most of Western society (I'm British, not American) is struggling to attain housing at a rate similar to the generation before, when the middle classes as a whole aren't able to become as financially secure as the generation before then it is enough to give me pause.

So ignoring any climate worries I already think things will be much harder. When you add on that it's estimated that billions will be without sufficient water in a few decades it's not hard to imagine that there will be significant problems of which I have very little confidence that we will be able to handle well as a species.

Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic. But as I say, this isn't the only factor we've taken into account, it's more a tertiary concern.

Keep in mind that I've said it's one of the factors, not the only factor.

But why should my standards be just better than most times in human history? That seems a low bar to me, most times in human history were miserable for the majority of people compared to the living standards I've become accustomed to.

To be clear, I don't feel there is any moral duty to continue my particular genes and the world population will continue to increase for the foreseeable regardless. If I were to have children I personally would feel guilty if they had it significantly harder than I have and I think the likelihood is that will be the case - it's really as simple as that.

This is one the factors as to why my partner and I have decided against having children. Not because we think it'll make the situation worse, but because we believe they shouldn't have to deal with the significant fallout from resource contention, climate migration etc. that is more than likely on the horizon when they had no hand in creating the problem

Always is a bit strong isn't it? Prior to the Wii their consoles tended to be similar to their contemporaries in processing power.

I certainly experienced areas in BOTW which took a heavy FPS hit and it sounds like TOTK is similar. Such an FPS drop does take me out of the game so if the console was powerful enough to avoid that then you could argue it would allow more fun games

This is the actual issue, spending isn't keeping up with the demand. I'd agree that "the Tories are to blame" doesn't capture it, but I don't think they're equipped to deal with the problem. Real terms spending per age adjusted capita appears to have been on a downwards trend [0] since they took power. I think this has gone up since the pandemic, but I think it's likely too little too late and will probably be a short term increase.

I'm also skeptical the IFS have managed to accurately estimate the required increase in funding. They don't go into their workings from what I can see, but I doubt they've accurately included the effect of the lifetime allowance on pensions causing doctors to avoid overtime or the £100k tax bracket where you lose your personal allowance not moving since 2009 which more and more doctors will fall into. I'd imagine they've underestimated it, but would be happy to hear evidence to the contrary.

That's not to say that I think any other party has a solution or is properly holding the Tories to account on this.

I'll admit I haven't thought too hard about the problem, but I think the fairest solution would be to make pensioners pay national insurance on their income. It wouldn't affect the poorest pensioners and since national insurance is no longer ring fenced for pensions/healthcare I'm not sure what the justification for a tax break based on age even is anymore.

As someone who intends to subsist on more in retirement that change would negatively affect me, but I still think it's fair. I know that this would be deeply unpopular though, so I don't hold out much hope of it happening anytime soon.

Maybe that isn't the best solution, but I really wish we'd start to have real discourse on how we need to restructure our society as the demographic of the country continues to skew older.

[0] https://ifs.org.uk/publications/9186 (figure 5)

It takes a long time to introduce a new cat, we have 3 indoor cats all introduced one at a time. It took around a month for both the second and third cat to be completely accepted.

The approach we took was to keep the new cat in a separate room for the first few days to allow them to begin to get used to the new scent. We would then swap blankets to give them further time to get used to each other's scents. Then we'd open the door and allow them to interact under supervision for short periods and then we gradually increased the time they could interact each day.

I'm not sure this would work if you had outdoor cats. We didn't actually intend to get the third cat, but we ended up taking him in as our friend's original cat refused to acclimate to the point that he was spending all but 20 mins a day outside of the house and so they needed a good home for their new cat.

Have you played Outer Wilds? If you've got even a passing interest in exploration, puzzle and environmental storytelling I would highly recommend it.

While you can grind to an extent in Dark Souls games, I would say the route they've taken is to let you explore. So very often if you're stuck on a particular boss or area you could grind lower level enemies for souls to level although this is generally inefficient, or you could try looking around a different area you've not explored and potentially find an item that lets you upgrade your weapon, or a spell that greatly helps with the boss fight. This is subtly taught early on in the game when after leaving the tutorial zone there are multiple routes you can take, but you quickly come to realise that one is a lot easier than the others.

Note that this isn't as true with Sekiro, which has a lot more sections where you are forced to just learn a particular encounter. That's not necessarily a bad thing and in fact is part of the reason why many people find the combat a lot more satisfying once it clicks, but it's worth keeping in mind that it's a different kind of game and it probably shouldn't be approached with the same mindset.

As for the Dark Souls PC port, the original release (Prepare to die edition) was locked to 30fps. There was a mod that let you run it at 60fps, but it caused some slight gameplay issues (I believe you would go half the horizontal distance when jumping). That version is not available anymore - you can only purchase Remastered edition now, which runs at 60fps.

The intention is that you do enough hp damage that their posture bar doesn't drop very much at all. In practice though that doesn't happen for most people with the vast majority of boss fights - you either get good enough at the combat that you deathblow them while their hp is still high through consistent posture damage or you die before you do much hp damage to them.

I've found using borderless "fullscreen" to actually improve latency. I had a lot of trouble with deflecting on Sekiro when I was running in fullscreen mode that I found immediately went away once I started running it borderless.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK you can make an unlimited gain on stocks and shares tax free in an ISA. The only restriction is the amount you can place in it per person, per year (£20k) and the vast majority of people aren't going to be putting that into savings in a given year.

If the rent is less than the opportunity cost of your deposit along with mortgage payments/maintenance taking into account possible gains in the house value as opposed to the stock market then it's plausible you could gain tax free assets faster via investing in an ISA than property ownership especially taking into account the extra opportunities you may be able to take advantage of by being able to move easier for a better job.

I personally am a home owner because I value having control over my environment (decorating, pets etc.) although that could conceivably be fixed via legislation as others have alluded to.

I'm not sold that avoiding home ownership is the best way to accumulate capital in the UK, but I don't think it's completely out of the question as you seem to imply.