I don’t care that future children will learn that the second most interesting thing about me is that I was hateful, because I have lots of money that will keep my corpse company!
Why should she care what a bunch of terminally online weirdos think about her? She has been extremely successful in her field and demonstrated that a woman can have success in a male dominated industry. Transgenders just hate her because she doesn’t think trans woman are woman because she believes woman means adult human female. That is a reasonable position to hold.
What’s so stupid about these fake origins that conservatives make up is that they pretend two things: 1) people can suddenly develop a new way of being that hadn’t existed before 2) that some dude invented it and then tricked a bunch of people into adopting it… Then just to be further deranged…you just happen to know it was a child molester who did it. Lol but also sad.
Curious, why do you think your shitty bigoted dickriding opinion matters? What do you get out of simping for the piece of shit, apart from ire and downvotes?
I don’t think she’s a piece of shit. She inspired a generation of young woman. I don’t think she’s a bigot just because she believes that there is a distinction between males and females.
There’s already too much shit to watch in one lifetime, and Hollywood has been rehashing the same stories every summer for atleast two decades. I think we’ll be alright bud.
I don’t know about you dude, but I frequently comment on shit I don’t actually give a shit about. Often while taking a shit. Like right now, in fact. When did the bar for “caring” drop so far that one deciding to comment in this thread rather than read the back of the shampoo bottle constitutes “caring”?
Also spending money on a service doesn’t mean it’ll make quality shows. Here’s a video where Netflix frivolously spends subscribers money on things that no one cares about: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXfTa7DCm5M
Our favorite shows are aided by a robust piracy community, which fuels Deviantart and Rule 34 (and people who who buy Danerys Targaryen Toaster ovens).
The shows that get cancelled are the ones with insufficient appeal to the mainstream (and Hollywood elites who think they know what Americans want), such as all the shows that had lesbian appeal were cancelled.
The other fate of a show is a season 7-8 of shark jumping moments, worsening in context the prior seasons. Like making Danerys Targaryen go mad at the perfectly wrong time in the finalé so the story doesn’t end with a queen in power.
This is why you write the test before the code. You write the test to make sure something fails, then you write the code to make it pass. Then you repeat this until all your behaviors are captured in code. It’s called TDD
But, full marks for writing tests in the first place
That supposes to have a clear idea of what you’re going to code. Otherwise, it’s a lot of time wasted to constantly rewrite both the code and tests as you better understand how you’re going to solve the task while trying. I guess it works for very narrowed tasks rather than opened problems.
The only projects I’ve ever found interesting in my career was the stuff where nobody had any idea yet how the problem was going to be handled, and you’re right that starting with tests is not even possible in this scenario (prototyping is what’s really important). Whenever I’ve written yet another text/email/calling/video Skype clone for yet another cable company, it’s possible to start with tests because you already know everything that’s going into it.
constantly rewrite both the code and tests as you better understand how you’re going to solve the task while trying
The tests should be decoupled from the “how” though. It’s obviously not possible to completely decouple them, but if you’re “constantly” rewriting, something is going wrong.
TDD doesn’t imply that you write all the tests first. It just mean you have to write a test before you write a line of production code.
The idea is to ask yourself “what is the first step I need, where am I going to begin?”. You then write a test that validate this first step and fail. Then you write the code to make it pass. Once your done with that, you ask yourself: "what’s the next step? ". You, then, repeat the process for that step.
This is a process you are going to do anyway. Might as well take the time to write some test along with it.
That leads to focusing on the nitty gritty details first, building a library of thing you think you might need and you forget to think about the whole solution.
If you come up with another solution half way through, you will probably throw away half of the code you already built.
I see TDD as going depth first whereas I prefer to go breadth first. Try out a solution and skip the details (by mocking or assuming things). Once you have settled on the right solution you can fill in the details.
The tests help you discover what needs to be written, too. Honestly, I can’t imagine starting to write code unless I have at least a rough concept of what to write.
Maybe I’m being judgemental (I don’t mean to be) but what I am trying to say is that, in my experience, writing tests as you code has usually lead to the best outcomes and often the fastest delivery times.
And a lot more bug prone. I’m just explaining the OP because people didn’t get it. I’m not saying dynamic languages are bad. I’m saying they have different trade-offs.
I have a feeling you are misunderstanding what is meant by “theorems for free” here. For example, one theorem that is proven by all safe Rust programs is that they don’t have data races. That should always be a requirement for functional software. This is a more pragmatic type of automatic theorem proving that doesn’t require a direct proof from the code author. The compiler does the proof for you. Otherwise the theorem would not be “free” as stated in OP.
Industry will choose not to verify that your function does not produce NullPointerException wasting hours of the client’s work, because in order to do that they would have to have actual requirements for software developers, and in order to do that they would have to 1 - have the managers be actually technically literate, and 2 - pay the developers properly That’s it. That’s the theorems. The “formal verification” we’re talking about here are those of the likes of “this value is a damn integer”, or as you could interpret it “your code is not stupidly broken”.
To be clear, I’m not writing this big comment for you, I know you’re trolling or whatever you’re into, I’m writing this to inform other readers. ✌🏻
Yes, that’s why we use typing, to get better working code more easily. That’s why I use type annotation and enforced checkers in Python. It makes it so much easier and quicker to create good systems of any significance.
I may just be an old country lawyer PHP developer… but don’t most dynamic languages also support static type checking and general analysis at this point?
Yes if you use type annotations. Languages like Python and Typescript end up resorting to “Any” types a lot of the time, which breaks any kind of theorem proving you might have otherwise benefited from.
Java developers aren’t allowed to not know better by this point. If they think skipping types is somehow ideologically purer, keep hitting with that stick until you hit deckplate.
Yes but no. Modern PHP lets you put types in function signatures and it will then attempt to convert your inputs to those types at runtime.
JS/TS and Python don’t do this. They have optional type annotations that’s treated as syntactic sugar. You can use static checkers against this but if you get an error like “expected string got int” you can still run the code. It won’t behave any differently because you have annotations.
Though even statically-typed languages can need to check types sometimes; parsing runtime data for instance. I can see how you’d do that with pure statics, but it’d just be shifting the work (e.g. if token == QUOTE: proc.call(read_str(bytes, len))). It’d be cool to see a counter example that isn’t unreadable gibberish, however.
But the situational absurdity, the unbelievability, is what makes it funny. Like me moderating an Android community on a niche tech forum. It’s hilarious.
What do you mean, this bad boy is probably powering a semi-critical government system somewhere, definitely not obsolete.
Edit: not even joking or shitting on it, there’s probably a proprietary software system out there somewhere that a contractor was paid to build ages ago. The contractor is out of business or doesn’t support it anymore, but it works perfectly in its one little spot. Also an update is gonna cost a quarter of a million dollars.
I’ve seen disk chart meters at facilities that are 40+ years old and need a new disk chart every so often. You could replace it with a digital meter, but that won’t integrate with the rest of the control panel and a third party took over production of the disks 15 years ago. The system works great and it’s unlikely to be updated unless they stop making the disk charts.
Edit 2: the correct term is circular chart recorder
I don’t know if it’s still there but I once did some work getting a plasma cutter back to operational. OS/2. Not even warp!
Oh it’s a pretty solid OS but i mean, damn.
Parallel port hardware key and everything. I do believe in keeping what works working but at some point you gotta let go because you run out of people that can solve problems with it.
Seems like this issue is across a few different industries. I had two CnC machine running software on old PC’s with special cards to interface with the drives. One was running in a Dos box while the other was running windows XP. We could never afford any down time so it was fine some old PC’s that can still run this stuff.
There are some data recording systems on planes designed in the 90s that still use the original designs. Memory cards that are as big as your hand and only hold megabytes worth of data.
Upgrading would be fairly simple in theory, but getting anything approved to be used on an aircraft is an expensive pain in the ass so they don’t want to go through that. They don’t need any more storage capacity either.
So somewhere out there some companies are making these now ancient parts for now ancient systems, and probably making a killing because nobody else makes them.
I made so much money on this kinda stuff. And even after all updated they still kept those damn chart recorders. Luckily they were standalone and I guess easier than hitting print.
And most of you would be terrified if you knew what they were manufacturing. Ignorance is bliss, trust.
There are components of various flying machines that are critical and must be made at certain temp and humidity. Else they are out of spec. That’s pretty much it. The people in charge of this are less thorough than you’d like.
I’m actually in complete agreement with you. Yes there are safeties and whatever, I was just saying those safeties aren’t exactly monitored as you would expect. Don’t worry, I’m sure it won’t affect you. Wasn’t this just about chart recorders?
As for the personal stuff, sorry you took it that way. You want to argue about something we agree on and I know exactly how that goes. As such, i suggest we just skip to the part where we chill and do something fun. No you aren’t my child but picking apart my simple comment is sorta… well you know. It’s all good, you might be one in 8 billion but I’m still your friend. Take care.
I know for a fact that many hospitals are still running 1970s COBOL on beige servers in the corners of basements that have been taken over by ICU wards. Because I has to maintain that shit amongst the dying. Weird job.
This is super true. I occasionally visit a TRIGA reactor that was built decades ago, and a good chunk of the computers critical in infrastructure run comically old versions of windows since software used to operate the faculty was a custom job.
Not much. You really shouldn’t be going into grain bins, and if you you do get stuck you should call for help and shut off anything that’s making the grain move. If you have to go into the bin for some reason, there should be someone outside with you and you should have a safety rope to help pull you out. Covering your mouth won’t help for long if at all. Someone will need to put up fans to ventilate the bin. You will suffocate in a grain bin and I’ve lost friends who went into bins.
You’d think by now there would be some kind of emergency quick release or some such. I don’t know what but in any other industry I feel like there are regulations in place so the murder box has some safety features.
I’d imagine it’s just one of those things where the safety feature for the murder box is just properly labeling the murder box, and making sure people who go in it are covered in ropes and safety equipment to pull them out if it starts murdering them.
Like people who have to go work in confined spaces like sewer tunnels. You can’t really put safety gear into the tunnel, so you have to just make it hard to get there, label it, and make it possible to quickly get people out when it goes wrong.
True true, very good points. And apparently the murder box was indeed labeled.
and make it possible to quickly get people out when it goes wrong.
I think this is the part that needs work. If the only real solution is to cut a big hole in the side of the thing to let the grain out, maybe I don’t know, a door? Like an emergency hatch that can be opened from the outside? Or even with a remote that the person inside could have on their person before entering. The remote could even be pressure activated so if pressure of the grain is crushing you it will automatically open the hatch.
I think they use a rope harness that keeps you from going down too far, and then they basically need to come dig you out if you do get pulled it.
That’s what I was implying with the sewer worker comparison, since they don’t get an escape hatch, just a harness, rope, and winches.
I’m willing to bet if you flipped to the next page after this diagram, it would say something along the lines of “and that’s why you always wear your harness”.
My guess would be that a door at bottom wouldn’t be able to let out enough material to free someone trapped at the top before it jammed up. When they empty them they only don’t jam because something is taking the grain away.
Every once in a while you read a story of someone that survived, it’s usually because they had a mask of some sort that filtered enough air through the grain so they could breathe. Like this guy: agweb.com/…/descent-hell-farmer-escapes-corn-tomb…
Can’t remember the video where I saw this (maybe smarter every day?) but if you’re not completely submerged they can use a tube/barrell they shove down around you and start scooping it out to release you.
lemmy.world
Top