Recent submissions

Comment · 7 years ago
Hey now, don't make me sad. In my heart I still like to pretend that Discworld will always have more books to read :'(
Comment · 7 years ago
This feels spectacularly Pratchett-esque. I would not be surprised to see this as the first sentence of a Discworld novel :P
Comment · 7 years ago
> Part of the message, aside from just quantifying how limited time is, would be to find enjoyment where you can in your 'mandatory' activities too as they'll represent the bulk of your life.

I wish I could give this comment more upvotes. I'm slowly learning this lesson in my personal life - I wish I could learn it faster, but the goddamn brain is just too much more insistent than the body..

Comment · 7 years ago
The only thing 'unspecified' guarantees you in this context is 'safe to destroy'. It specifically does not guarantee the safety of any other member functions - only the destructor. So either push_back() or pop_back() could potentially cause UB here (specifically, it's quite possible that the move swaps some internal pointers for nullptr, so you end up dereferencing null here - but morally, it's just never okay to continue using a moved-from object).
Comment · 7 years ago
Right, this is what I was alluding to with 'choosing what to feature'. But I honestly am not sure whether a line should be drawn here, and if it should, where it should be drawn. I know that one feels distinctly creepier than the other, though, so I'm sort of hoping someone chimes in and can clarify my thoughts better than I can :)
Comment · 7 years ago
Aren't they different, though? When I go into a grocery store, the deal is, they put out a selection of things, I pick the ones I want, then I go home. This is actively trying to manipulate me personally into buying something that is not one of my original desires.

I mean, I guess grocery stores already do this in some ways, in choosing what to feature... they do effectively 'advertise' certain products. But this seems more like it's trying to manipulate my behaviours, rather than trying to fulfill my desires as well as possible. I'm not sure how different it is... but it feels a lot different to me.

Comment · 7 years ago
'Ultron is designed with OOP in mind and has not failed to live up to the promise at all possible places.'

Would that more professional programmers had this humility. :)

Comment · 7 years ago
I... definitely did not just watch this play itself for like five straight minutes...

I think I need to get more fresh air or something.

Comment · 8 years ago
Presumably 'developer experience', given how it's used in conjunction with 'user experience' for a developer-focused product :)

Admittedly not the most easily understood acronym, and I'm sort of guessing.

Comment · 8 years ago
I was convinced it would be something about realistic hair simulation and/or rendering.

I was surprised, but I was not disappointed.

Comment · 8 years ago
Not gonna lie, I still can't parse what this is supposed to be after a number of readings. What's the actual sentence? I'm so curious :P
Comment · 8 years ago
Thank you for posting this, I found it both very enlightening and a pretty fun internet-drama read :D

Interesting that the original complaint of that article/thread and this one are both the same - ie. quaternions are 'too hard to understand', and people 'use them without knowing how they work'. With this being posted so soon after https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18310788 , I feel like that complaint is less valid now than it ever has been, but it's kind of interesting to think about why quaternions in particular draw so much fire when, honestly, I found matrices to be equally challenging at first. Is it just an education thing, since matrices are generally taught much earlier? Or is there some intuition in matrices that isn't present in quaternions? Both of them seem to be just 'do this math, then magic happens' unless you think about them a fair bit, and that was pretty challenging for both the first time round imo.

Comment · 8 years ago
So I've actually thought about this a fair bit recently, since I'm making some changes to C++ code that touch a lot of files in reasonably straightforward ways. The changes should be possible to merge conflict-free in basically 100% of cases, but since so many lines are touched, no VCS merge tool can manage it. Most of my changes are just typenames, so I figured, you could do some sort of AST-based merge to allow those changes to merge with semantic changes to the surrounding code.

But this has a lot of problems. Namely - most of the time, when two people change the same line, the changes really do conflict, and someone really does need to manually merge them. In fact, sometimes even when your VCS merges things happily, it still gets them wrong because two changes conflict semantically but don't touch the same lines.

So I guess I would say, I think merging is an impossible problem to 'solve', and going to a more granular merge strategy is actually a move in the wrong direction. You could maybe fix my particular case by 'whitelisting' those typename changes, and saying 'these are allowed to merge with anything else', but at that point... the effort required to specify that unambiguously and make it work properly is probably higher than just merging the changes.

Comment · 8 years ago
I really really hope this was a joke, because it was incredibly funny if so and terrifying if not.
Comment · 8 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton