jlgreco
Joined 14 years ago
Karma
18,247
Submissions
6,174
Member since
May 4
Recent submissions
Comment · 12 years ago
Is that a thing? I don't seem to be able to do that with 18k+, so if it exists there are only a couple dozen people that can.
Comment · 13 years ago
Hmm, good catch, I didn't notice when that was published.
Comment · 13 years ago
That rationale may be a bit revisionist, here is Olin Shivers' take on RMS's justification for elisp's dynamic scoping:
"Some context: Common Lisp did not exist (the effort was just getting underway). MIT Scheme did not exist. Scheme was a couple of AI Lab tech reports and a master's thesis. We're talking the tiniest seed crystal imaginable, here. There was immense experience in the lisp community on optimising compiled implementations of dynamically-scoped languages -- this, to such an extent, that it was a widely held opinion at the time that "lexical scope is interesting, theoretically, but it's inefficient to implement; dynamic scope is the fast choice." I'm not kidding. To name two examples, I heard this, on different occasions, from Richard Stallman (designer & implementor of emacs lisp) and Richard Fateman (prof. at Berkeley, and the principal force behind franz lisp, undoubtedly the most important lisp implementation built in the early Vax era -- important because it was delivered and it worked). I asked RMS when he was implementing emacs lisp why it was dynamically scoped and his exact reply was that lexical scope was too inefficient. So my point here is that even to people who were experts in the area of lisp implementation, in 1982 (and for years afterward, actually), Scheme was a radical, not-at-all-accepted notion. And outside the Lisp/AI community... well, languages with GC were definitely not acceptable. (Contrast with the perl & Java era in which we live. It is no exaggeration, thanks to perl, to say in 2001 that billions of dollars of services have been rolled out to the world on top of GC'd languages.)"
http://www.paulgraham.com/thist.html
(emphasis not my own)
That whole page is a good read, particularly if you are a fan of Shivers' writing style.
Comment · 13 years ago
Ideally anything that you reject for should also be conveniently baked into the build system so that you can do things like `make validate` before pushing to save yourself the embarrassment.
Comment · 13 years ago
pre-commit would be a bad idea. You would have to ask all of your developers to install the hook, instead of just installing it on your 'official' repos and it would quickly become a nuisance to developers who liked to create temporary commits with no intention of ever giving them out to the rest of the world. These developers would quickly become annoyed at the pre-commit hook, turn it off, then you would be back where you started (except now you would have a false sense of security).
I do agree that pre-commit isn't the best choice though. I prefer update hooks; I find they are simpler to write and easier to read.
Comment · 13 years ago
A braggart might construct a humble persona, but would a true braggart maintain such a persona for long? If they could, is there really any basis for calling them a braggart in the first place?
Being a braggart seems fundamentally incompatible with "not bragging", for years on end, about your greatest accomplishment (and barring the possibility that SN is somebody very famous, say, Putin, it is almost certain that bitcoin is the most famous thing that SN has done). Not in a "Scottish, but doesn't wear a kilt" way, but in a "Scottish, but does not live and was not born in Scotland" kind of way.
Comment · 13 years ago
My understanding is that they do use such magnets for microgravity experiments. Here is a cool video on diamagnetic levitation from the University of Nottingham: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nod54HFkH0o
Comment · 13 years ago
The presentation is pretty good (fairly minimal, which I like), but I think that some autocompletion in those search forms would go a long way. Things like showing autocompletes for town names or strains.
Comment · 13 years ago
Hmm, it looks like you are right, but I think they can't start actually selling until January 1st. I'm not quite sure there.
In Washington it will still be a few more months, since anything sold recreationaly needs to be grown explicitly for recreational use, and that process cannot start until the permits are issued (I believe they have until the end of this year before they are required by law to start issuing permits to grow (or sell)).
Comment · 13 years ago
Barring the possibility that you are in a jurisdiction with unusually draconian drug laws, sure it's legal. This site is just telling you how much different strains cost at different businesses where you can legally buy them (currently, if you have a prescription). The site itself isn't selling weed.
Comment · 13 years ago
Nowhere in Washington or Colorado is selling recreational weed legally yet (although many businesses are partially through the licensing/application process).
fwiw, Leafly seems a bit easier to use than this site.
Comment · 13 years ago
Fun graphene fact: As the article mentions, graphene was first isolated at the University of Manchester using sticky tape. For this discovery, Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics... making Andre Geim the first person to be awarded both the Nobel Prize and the Ig Nobel Prize. He was previously awarded the Ig Nobel Prize for magnetically levitating a live frog.
Comment · 13 years ago
You have just rediscovered the reason that some people talk about "free software", and some people talk about "open source".
The sort of access to source code that is being expected here is really no more than the sort of access that you can get to Windows code. It really is not an unreasonable expectation.
Comment · 13 years ago
@dba7dba You are hellbanned. This means that most users cannot read your comments.
Comment · 13 years ago
[Disconnection the discussion from something that we are personally connected to...]
Is it preferable for a newspaper to report on a new medical study and publish Yet Another(tm) "Researchers at [University] find cure to cancer" story, or, is it better for the newspaper to refrain from talking about the medical paper entirely?
Personally, I have to go with the later. Given the choice between botched reporting and no reporting, I'll go with no reporting. It is better to be uninformed than misinformed. It is easier to correct 'uninformed' and the state of 'uninformed' is easier for self-aware people to recognize in themselves.
Consider the fallout caused by the media botching the reporting of the FTL neutrino anomaly. People lost their jobs because reporters could not be arsed to do theirs.
I am retiring this account, as it has become too 'high-profile' for my tastes.