thsealienbstrds

Make my password great again

Microsoft tried this with Touch Develop. The project was shut down last year. The on-screen keyboard layout was context-sensitive. IIRC you could enter complete keywords with a single key, maybe even variable names. It was pretty cool. Perhaps phones just don't have the screen estate for serious programming.

It doesn't sound to me like the kind of thing that any particular WoW is going to fix. As if it would suddenly naturally dawn on someone to do this given enough time. It's just lack of knowledge and/or discipline.

I don't believe that not setting a deadline is the solution. There are definitely software engineers who will happily change their designs an infinite amount of times if you let them.

The testers keep running into situations where things don't seem to be right, luckily your product manager is happy to defer most issues raised unless it is a real "show stopper," as Jeff loves to exclaim.

That might have been the critical mistake. Jeff should not have done that. He should have insisted on lots of feedback loops during the project. He should have put more effort into convincing himself that the product is of sufficient quality.

As for the developers, they should have made it clear to Jeff: if he's not allocating resources to convince himself that the product is of sufficient quality, he shouldn't be mad at them when in the end the product doesn't work.

Try to use it for a while also. My experience has also been that, after a short time, you will be required to provide your phone number for security reasons.

Knuth invented a system that combines writing and coding: literate programming. Maybe you'd like that.

Yep, I wish it was better as well. The situation has improved a little bit though. For example, you can upgrade to newer builds of the same LineageOS version OTA using a built-in updater app.

On one hand, I really welcome technologies like this that empower people in a huge way. On the other hand, I really dread that in this case it comes from the company that wants to know everything about you.

The example where Google hid a microphone in Nest makes me believe they will do anything to get more information from people. I think it's not beyond Google to use people's handicaps to improve the image of Google Glass. Sorry to put it like that...

Yeah it makes sense when you think about it, but the first time you see it you're like wtf.

GT Sport has a DLC-mode where you can do time trials vs. Lewis Hamilton's lap times. On a track where he clocked 1 minute 37 seconds, I was pretty shocked to find that the top 10 GT Sport players _all_ clocked lap times around 2 seconds faster than that.

It has been for a while. I occasionally need to do !g when I'm searching for obscure errors, but it doesn't happen often.

This could be considered a flaw in those products as well.

So, it means cross platform.

Are you aware of any memory-leak issues with fset? I once used it in a game where I updated an fset sequence in real-time. I let it run for a while, after coming back I noticed my computer was completely frozen (out of RAM).

And increasingly, everything _with_ a computer too. I literally cannot use the laundry machines in my apartment building without an app I need to get from Google/Apple app store.

It seems to me that the amount of politics discussed on a platform is related to how popular that platform is. I like how in some technical IRC channels they just ban any political discussions outright. It seems to keep the channel on-topic even with thousands of users. Not saying HN should follow this course... but this thought crosses my mind sometimes. Sometimes there's too much political discussions on HN for my taste.

So, the advantage of this method is that it is practical and the closest one to a method that produces the optimal solution. Where the latter method is at risk of crazy compile times because it relies on solving a problem that is NP-hard?

Isn't that actually another thing to worry about: what is going to happen to all this data when FB eventually goes bankrupt? Seems hard to believe they're just going to delete it from their servers...

Let's say you run your own mail server. How much privacy do you really gain if 99% of the mail that comes in and goes out passes through Google servers? It doesn't matter what you do by yourself. You just can't expect everybody to run their own mail server. I run my own mail server, and while I'm happy to be self-reliant, it's hardly a win for my privacy (also, mail server administration is a pita).

Same goes for every other communication tech. Just because your endpoint is not spied upon, if every other endpoint is spied upon you gain nothing. If you don't use WhatsApp, but all your friends use WhatsApp to talk about you then you gained nothing.

If you really believe there is no such thing as collective decision-making then imho you already gave up in the fight for privacy.

But even if we boycot Google and Facebook, they are not the main problem. Their business model is the main problem. Spying on your users, training predictive models, and using those models to exploit people is simply too profitable, and therefore too attractive for any profit-seeking company to ignore.

Until we solve that problem by deciding as a society that these business models are not ok, this 1984-like world we currently live in will be our reality.

Individually, you have a choice. But not using e.g. WhatsApp needs to be a collective decision or it won't work because everybody else is still stuck in there.

I suspect social media companies don't like the message because they don't like the costs required for good moderation. They don't really care about free speech, that's just spin.

I really hope that's not true.

When it comes to Haskell, I want to add that especially when you start doing parallel programming, it becomes even harder to reason about. You might expect that doing that extra data type conversion in parallel rather than in sequence is going to make things faster, but you could find that the GC needs to do more work for whatever reason, and it ends up actually becoming slower. It's very counter-intuitive. It's a shame because writing parallel code in Haskell can be very elegant. If only the behavior was more obvious it would be so great.

I agree with your observation, except for the part where he not bashing on QuickCheck (he is, but you have to click the first link in the article in order to find it).

One of the big differences between Hypothesis and Haskell QuickCheck is how shrinking is handled.

Specifically, the way shrinking is handled in Haskell QuickCheck is bad and the way it works in Hypothesis (and also in test.check and EQC) is good. If you’re implementing a property based testing system, you should use the good way. If you’re using a property based testing system and it doesn’t use the good way, you need to know about this failure mode.

The big difference is whether shrinking is integrated into generation.

Integrating shrinking into generation has two large benefits...

The first is mostly important from a convenience point of view...

But the second is <i>really</i> important, because the lack of it makes your test failures potentially extremely confusing.

Quality of the site aside, this concept would be great with JSON-API or something so it can be integrated with <insert favorite editor/IDE here>.

Fair enough I guess. If the Lisp macro system only sees parsed s-exps, in principle you still need to figure out for yourself what kind of construct you are dealing with on a higher level of abstraction. Nim's macro system seems to be operating on a higher level of abstraction in that regard.

Still, isn't it AST-based in the sense that the input of a Lisp macro is effectively a parsed syntax tree, just as in Nim?

In one of my projects I use a macro to parse a set of types for fields and generate constructor macros for them.

Funny, I did a similar thing! :)

Disclaimer: I only did a hobby project in Lisp once. But I did use some of the macro functionality.

Judging by some of the comments here, it seems like the macro system has a similar approach as Lisp's macro system, which is also AST-based. Something I don't see here is macros that generate other macros, but the question is how much you really want that anyway (when I did that, I thought the syntax was horribly complicated because of all the quoting). I know Lisp also has reader macros (they run before the parser) that allow you to effectively change the language syntax, but I didn't use those.

Yep, toxic masculinity sounds like men have some kind of disease that they spread whenever they fart.