It’s also a tactic of bullshitters to say a whole bunch of stuff in series, just put something out there and quickly move on to the next thing, making it sound like they have a lot of substance but hoping the quick change doesn’t give anyone much of a chance to pull on any of the threads of what they said or look close enough to realize that there is little to no substance behind any of it.

Ancient Aliens and Alex Jones both also use that.

And it’s a pain in the ass to unravel because people who don’t want to look more closely and just want to believe think there’s a list of things that need to be disproven if you wait and let the speaker finish or don’t question him about it directly because the believers don’t feel like they have the expertise to rebut counterpoints (so shelve them instead of discarding) and instead just want to go down the list. Which is fair, though it would be nice if they applied that same skepticism to that list of points in the first place.

But this seems like an effective counter for that strategy. Just pick an item on the list that doesn’t sound right and keep pulling on that thread with the person that said it on the first place rather than the disciples blindly following. Then they’ll see it’s not just their lack of expertise getting in the way of arguing back against counterpoints, it’s the whole thing lacking any real substance at all.

Yeah, I was going to mention race conditions as soon as I saw the parent comment. Though I’d guess most cases where the debugger “fixes” the issue while print statements don’t are also race conditions, just the race isn’t tight enough that that extra IO time changes the result.

Best way to be thorough with concurrency testing IMO involves using synchronization to deliberately check the results of each potential race going either way. Of course, this is an exponential problem if you really want to be thorough (like some races could be based on thread 1 getting one specific instruction in between two specific instructions in thread 2, or maybe a race involves more than 2 threads, which would make it exponentially grow the exponential problem).

But a trick for print statement debugging race conditions is to keep your message short. Even better if you can just send a dword to some fast logger asynchronously (though be careful to not introduce more race conditions with this!).

This is one of the reasons why concurrency is hard even for those who understand it well.

Instead of ejecting the pilot away from the helicopter, why not design the helicopter to eject away from the pilot?

Maybe the downvotes are because firing him into the sun would be very expensive. Just fire him into a volcano or something more local than the ball of plasma 8 light minutes away that we have way too much momentum to hit easily.

A preemptive strike is still suicide even if it’s done because early detection capabilities are reduced or lost. And a first strike against someone without early detection capabilities still isn’t a guaranteed win when the subs are still hidden and the doomsday device is still armed.

Putting all the eggs in the solar basket has risks, too. Like a large volcano eruption that reduces the amount of light that reaches the surface for a few years would be a double whammy, affecting food production as well as electricity production (which we’d need to rely on to try to offset the food losses). If we’re instead facing brownouts or full blackouts, that’s a recipe for a complete loss of stability. I suspect less solar energy reaching the surface would also reduce total wind energy (less localized heating would mean lower pressure differentials, but I could be missing other significant parts of this equation).

I’d be most comfortable with a nice mix of energy sources combined with mothballing instead of decommissioning some capacity as renewables are able to take over more and more of the day to day energy needs so that we’re prepared to deal with an emergency like that.

I’d also like to see more food production moved to vertical farms that can be powered by electricity rather than relying entirely on the sun and weather. But I do understand that the scale of food production would make doing that with a significant portion of the food supply very difficult. But with climate change (plus nutrient depletion of the soil), keeping so many eggs in the “just keep farming” basket also doesn’t seem like a great idea.

I wonder if people will soon realize that that rage they have for scalpers is just directed at the amateurs and that the upper class is full of people doing pretty much the same thing just in less obvious ways.

Your employer (if you work for a private for-profit company) pays you x for your labour and then takes the proceeds of the labour and sells it for y where y is (generally) much higher than x. A business is profitable when the sum of all y is higher than the sum of all x.

If it’s a non-profit, then the difference between y and x must be put back into the business in some way, which could be an investment into an expansion of its scope or it could be a raise for some or all of the workers (payroll is not profit, it’s an expense). And that could mean just the CEO gets a raise, because some of the leeching is via different pay levels for different people that isn’t based on just the difference they are directly making to the income.

Public services can vary. If the service is profitable, then the profit goes into the budget of the government entity(s) that run it, as determined by legislature. So everyone is acting as the middleman there. If it’s not profitable, then it’s covered by taxes, at cost. There’s still varying salaries but it’s subject to government oversight, so things shouldn’t get as unbalanced as they would in the private sector, at least in theory. Though even in the public sector, there’s this assumption that promotions should come with big raises, regardless of how the workload changes, so you can still have people at the top making orders of magnitude more than people at the bottom.

Yeah, I wish C++ had function/scope epilogs and labeled loops/breaks, too. Those are the cases where the “never use goto” rule can be broken to make better code than adding all of the code that would be required to handle it the “right” way (setting up early exit flags and if statements after each level of nested loop to check the flag).

That’s the core of neo liberalism. Liberalism has a “my rights end where yours begin” component but neo liberalism drops that and expects the free market to solve such conflicts.

And by “collective public elements”, I meant public organizations like the postal service, police departments, etc. The government itself is supposed to be one of those. Liberalism is neutral on what is and isn’t collectivized. Neo liberalism likes privatization but appreciates that some functions are better handled by the public, like law enforcement and road maintenance. Libertarianism believes it should all be private.

In the last comment I said neo liberalism and libertarianism are pretty much the same, but it’s more accurate to say libertarianism is an extreme version of neo liberalism.

Yeah, I like the sweet spot that C++ is in. It can do anything C can but then you have classes and STL and all that on top of it.

The Nazis were winning for most of the war. The UK might have been knocked out of the war entirely if the Nazis hadn’t paused their advance and given them a chance to get their men back across the channel, which they needed to borrow civilian boats to do.

It was more about resources. The allies were basically the rest of the world between the British, French, and Dutch empires. Japan did more to disrupt that than Germany did, and Germany was eventually knocked out of the Naval war, which left Britain free to import as much as they needed from those combined empires. And the Nazis were running out of fuel, which is why they invaded USSR.

WWII ended up being a war of attrition just like WWI was, the main difference was that Germany was able to take a lot more territory before their lack of resources caught up with them.

They might mean neo libs.

It’s fucking annoying when capitalists keep coming up with capitalist positions and naming them so that they sound like they are something else. Like neo liberalism or libertarianism, which are pretty close to the same thing (all about a deregulated, private, free market), only libertarians like to emphasize how they are ok with sex and drugs.

Liberals want governments and collective public elements to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals (from other individuals, organizations, and governments).

Neo liberals want governments and collective public elements to stay out of their affairs and let them manage their own interests.

If anything, prosecuting him might even make Israel safer because this whole thing is serving as a recruitment campaign for Hamas or whatever replaces them if Israel manages to eliminate their current command structure.

I don’t think they accounted for any of the consequences of filling a tank with water. It’s a really outdated set of rules. Like it doesn’t even have special allowances for civilian casualties when Hamas is suspected of hiding in their clothing, which is clearly anti-Semitic. It doesn’t even say it’s ok to kill some civilians if their side embarrassed you by sinking your flagship when they have no navy.

I think part of it is going through all those sorting methods to show quick sort is the best so that a) students who run into new sorts are better equipped to determine it most likely isn’t better than quick sort and b) to show the process used to determine quick sort is better than the rest in case you have some other algorithm options you want to pick the best of.

And yeah, depending on what you do, some tasks never involve any of that, or when they do, they get offloaded onto a library or something that gives the solution to that step directly.

But, for example, if you have a collection, the question of array vs linked list vs tree is still relevant, even if you’re just choosing a provided construct that is built on top of one of those. Each has their strengths and weaknesses depending on how the data is added, removed, and accessed.

And with how slow things are these days despite how much better the hardware is, I think there’s a lot of successful software engineers and programmers who should be using that stuff from school more than they are.

Also big O analysis IMO should just be the starting point of maximizing efficiency. Those coefficients that just get dropped can have a huge impact. For example, any algorithm written in JavaScript or visual basic will be of the same order as that same algorithm written in C/C++ or rust, but will likely perform much slower. And the exact manner of implementation could even result in the C version being slower than the VB one.

And on the other hand, I wouldn’t call a lot of big O analysis very advanced math. You might get a tighter bound with advanced math on some algorithms, but you can get a rough estimate just by multiplying and adding loops together. The harder question would be something like “does this early exit optimization result in an O(x³) algorithm becoming an O(log(x)*x²)?”

Oooh, I see what you’re saying! Yeah, that makes total sense.

… But couldn’t they just adjust the volume of the heavy metal music all tanks are required to play be the Geneva convention so that full blast isn’t loud enough to cause hearing damage?

He’s got a lot of charisma. And his videos frequently give that “people doing something they should have prepared more for but pushing through anyways” entertainment where you can laugh at how they put effort into creating an illusion of professionalism but left enough gaps to make it clear it was just an illusion and he’s in way over his head, but somehow still manages to keep it going.

It’s a weird spot where I like the guy and want to see him succeed but also don’t think he deserves that success and want to see him fail.

Though I don’t really spend much time watching hardware enthusiast videos in general, so I probably won’t see either of those unless it goes viral like his last shitshow did.

Yeah, it’s one of those core components that if someone actually lists it, first assumption is that they felt like they needed to pad their resume.

Though at the same time, it could be an attempt to say, “hey, I don’t know each of the specific languages you’ve listed, but because I know how to use a search engine, I can quickly learn any of them”.

Like I learned python because I needed it for assignments. It wasn’t a “oh, some classes might use python, I better learn it ahead of time”, it was a “I’ve just been given an assignment that must be written in Python. It’s due in two weeks, so next week I’ll sit down with a tutorial or two to learn the basics, then I’ll just have a couple of reference tabs going while I do the assignment itself”. And I’ve done that at work for both perl and ruby.

Out of all languages I’ve learned, the only new paradigms were things like objects, functional programming, or RTL programming with verilog. And really only that last one is a significant mindset shift. Objects are just a way to organize data and methods, functional programming is just using a new variable for each assignment, it’s all still running the same machine code on a CPU core. RTL is different because it’s designing circuitry that “runs itself”, but even that is one that I learned during one school term that I could have picked up on my own if pointed in the right direction.

The real benefits from my schooling and experience are all harder to put on a resume. I know how to learn. I might not know everything you’d like me to know to do this job right now, but I’m confident that I can learn them quickly and competently enough to be useful in this role. I naturally gravitate towards edge cases and rule exceptions, which I find helps mature my experience quicker because debugging is more matching current behavior with a limitation I was already aware of rather than needing to discover that limitation exists. But how do I put that on a resume, especially one that needs to get passed AI filters just looking for the most matches with words from the job posting? Or as a hiring manager, what do I even look for to try to get more of those people than rigid people who happen to have a match with the current skillset I’m looking for? A university level degree is the only thing I can think of so far.