bhk

In America in the 70s, and yes.

The increase in usage in the latter half of the 20th century is interesting to me, because I recall being surprised in elementary school that "weird" was a dictionary word. I thought it was informal slang among kids, having associated its usage not with adults but with those my age, who generally found its sound amusing.

Ah, yes, climate change, which also explains how Lyme disease, first diagnosed in the US in the northern midwest and northeast, later spread southward. I'm sure it works in mysterious ways in your neighborhood as well.

Working with the browser technology stack is living in a dystopian world of overcomplicated, often duplicative features defined in many thousands of pages of specifications, often revised and/or contradicted by other specifications, many of which do not apply to the reality of actual implementations, so encyclopedic knowledge of the specifications is not enough -- you need familiarity with everything written on the internet about these APIs. Accessing even conceptually simple features can require navigating through multiple APIs that purport to provide that feature, most of which have fatal shortcomings in design, specification, or real-world support. AI is a godsend here, at least for now ... I wonder what the impending post-human-developer "model collapse" will yield.

Blackpill depression post complaining about "blackpill depression circklejerks"...

There's a lot missing in this article. Obvious follow-up questions unanswered.

Not just the string-related functions. If you want robust error checking, re-entrant code, and bounds checking performed in library functions (instead of performing bespoke validations all across your code base), you have some work to do. Yes, some improvements have been tacked on over the years, but many problems ("current locale", for one) remain endemic.

In my experience, the worst part of the C standard library is not its existence, but the fact that so many developers insist on slavishly using it directly, instead of safer wrappers.

Any opinion voiced on the Internet can manipulate AI responses. Can Google suppress that?

"The more laws, the less justice." -- Cicero

Thanks for the references.

I think you will agree that the bulk of your comment employs a post-set-theory nomenclature.

Regarding "if you were to choose a point completely at random, the odds of that point being another rational is zero", I ponder the question of how one might casually "choose" a value with infinite entropy.

Ah, but it's worse than this. The truly ambitious ladder climber creates not just unnecessarily complicated abstractions, but organizations. Processes for people to follow. Infrastructure for people to maintain. Committees to vet changes. Standing meetings.

Let me guess: the point of the interview was to see if he was a "team player".

I think you are getting away from my point, which pertains to what the article said, which is that mathematicians thought there were "gaps". What mathematician? Can I see the original quote?

The linguistic sleight-of-hand is what I challenge. What is this "gap" in which there are no numbers?

- A reader would naturally assume the word refers to a range. But if that is the meaning, then mathematicians never believed there were gaps between numbers.

- Or could "gap" refer to a single number, like sqrt(2)? If so, it obviously is not a gap without a number.

- Or does it refer to gaps between rational numbers? In other words, not all numbers are rational? Mathematicians did in fact believe this, from antiquity even ... but that remains true!

Regarding this naive construction you are referring to: did it precede set theory? What definition of "gap" would explain the article's treatment of it?

That's not a "gap" that you find by "zooming in". And how can it be a gap when it is occupied?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you cite any claims by mathematicians that there were "gaps"? It isn't even true for rational numbers that you can identify an unoccupied "gap".