lscharen

No, because the point is that the branch version does not touch "total" when the branch is taken, but the non-branch version will always multiply "total" by something.

Maybe something (contrived) like this providing no-op defaults?

  total = calculateOrderTotal(user.order);
  if (user.isPremiumMember) {
    total = total * 0.9;        // 10% discount

versus

  total = calculateOrderTotal(user.order);
  discount = calculateDiscount(user);  // Returns 0.9 or 1.0
  total = total * discount;

> If you ask permission for spending, it's a very onerous and frustrating process. If you just deploy stuff and get billed for it, it's much easier!

This point is underappreciated as it appears in many forms and can really help reconcile things that seems obviously wasteful (they may actually be wasteful, but sometimes financial structure makes this hard to determine in an honest capacity).

Capital costs and operational costs are a similar dichotomy. When I was in graduate school, the university was breaking ground on new buildings at the same time that staff layoffs were underway. On its face this seems grossly unreasonable, but staff salaries were paid from one funding bucket and capital improvements (new buildings) were funded by a completely independent state-level allocation process and those buildings that were breaking ground had essentially been locked in 5 to 10 years prior.

I was halfway through the article and began thinking that his described data structure sounded very familiar to something I used about 20 years ago.

Sure enough, the first paragraph on the Wikipedia entry for DAFSA is:

DAFSA is the rediscovery of a data structure called Directed Acyclic Word Graph (DAWG)

> Notice I have changed the extension from .js to .mjs. Don’t worry, either extension can be used. And you are going to run into issues with either choice

As someone that has used module systems from dojo to CommonsJS to AMD to ESM with webpack and esbuild and rollup and a few others thrown in ... this statement hits hard.

I can see the point of trying to make a distinction, but it is muddy.

An emulator can operate on many different levels of trying to match the behavior of the underlying hardware. CPU emulators can emulate at the opcode level (easier) or try to increase accuracy by emulating the CPU pipeline cycle by cycle (harder).

In this particular case, the distinction between an "emulator" and a "hardware emulator" seem apt because the article discusses that the required fixes needed to start tracking the state of individual pins of the hardware chips. This, to me, represents that the emulation needed to "go down another level" and model the physical hardware to a certain degree to gain the needed accuracy.

Having a way to mark that difference is useful.

  The states decided to add one digit to these numbers to further subdivide
  them. They did it differently, of course, and some didn't subdivide at all.
  Some of them have typos with "O" in place of "0" in a few places. Some
  states dropped the leading zeroes, and then added a suffix digit, which is fun.

Any identifier that is comprised of digits but is not a number will have a hilariously large amount of mistakes and alterations like you describe.

In my own work I see this all the time with FIPS codes and parcel identifiers -- mostly because someone has round-tripped their data through Excel which will autocast the identifiers to numeric types.

Federal GEOIDs are particularly tough because the number of digits defines the GEOID type and there are valid types for 10, 11 and 12-digit numbers, so dropping a leading zero wreaks havoc on any automated processing.

There's a lot of ways to create the garbage in GIGO.

I just recently did a website conversion that used vite and took a look at both vitest and playwright.

Ended up going with playwright for the “batteries included” browser support and because we use .Net Core for the backend.

dotnet doesn’t always get the best support from pure JS/TS projects, so it seemed like a reasonable hedge.

Reminds me of Intellectual Venture's Optical Fence developed to track and kill mosquitoes with short laser pulses.

As a side-effect of the precision needed to spatially locate the mosquitoes, they could detect different wing beat frequencies that allowed target discrimination by sex and species.