🔗 Quick links thread
-
@Boner Chris morris is a fucking genius
-
@Jaloopa said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
Chris morris is a fucking genius
An evil genius of satire, up there with Armando Iannucci.
-
6 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die
A sane feminist. I could almost get behind.
-
@r10pez10 site has only videos, not watching. but looks interesting
-
@Yamikuronue both OOP and functional programming are mostly overhyped bullshit anyway.
-
Overhyped? Fuck yes. Bullshit? Is a hammer bullshit because you can't cut a board with it in a sensible manner? The problem lies in the chuckleheads who learned how to use hammers but don't have enough cranial capacity to learn to use a saw as well, or more often, didn't really learn to use a hammer in the first place and are rightly afraid that if they admit that they don't know hammers or saws, they will lose their six-figure incomes.
(By this analogy, Imperative and procedural programming are the equivalent of a jackknife and a Swiss-Army knife, respectively. You can't do much with a jackknife, and while a Swiss Army knife can do many things, it can't do any of them well, or do anything on a big scale without heroic effort.)
-
@Jaloopa said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
@boomzilla most of economics has always been magic anyway
FTFY. The difference between 'hard currency' and 'fiat money' is almost entirely imaginary, given that the value of hard currency depends on trust in the issuer's honesty and the acceptability of the currency to others just as surely as fiat money does.
-
@ScholRLEA practices people say you should do in OOP were never demonstrated as superior by the scientific method, so it's as bullshitty as homeopathy IMO.
-
@Jaloopa said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
Chris morris is a fucking genius
-
Dunno about the accuracy of their calculations, but it's probably something like that
-
@groo By that standard, everything in programming is witchcraft.
Mind you, it pretty much is, but pointing out that OOP is bullshit without saying the same about everything else in the field is rather absurd.
To go back to my earlier analogy, the RWTF is that we are trying to build the Empire State Building out of clay bricks using hammers, and sacrificing chickens instead of trying to figure out why our fired clay and wattle structure keeps collapsing after we add the third floor no matter how hard we hit those easily-shattered bricks with our carpentry tools.
-
Sorry to continue with a new post, but I know some of you have already seen the previous one.
Anyway, the real reason you think OOP and FP are bullshit, IMAO, is because you and half the fucking world keep trying to make them into something they aren't, namely silver bullets. They are tools, and ones with fairly limited application at that, much like hammers and saws are. Trying to use them as the primary tool for a major project, never mind the only one, has sent a lot of programmers running screaming into the outer dark, raving in madness, over the past twenty-five plus years.
Especially when the software development technology to accomplish the intended goal simply doesn't exist yet, which is the case in the majority of large projects today.
OOP came out of three things: modeling physical events, organizing parallel processes, and manipulating visual images on a bitmapped screen. The second one has (unfortunately) been largely ignored, and the first one is no longer a major part of general software development, but the rise of GUIs was a natural fit for OOP - so long as you didn't try to hammer a database in two with it, or use it to screw a variable into a mathematical function. It does those three jobs (modeling, managing the interfaces between communicating processes, and GUIs) well, and they're about all it does well.
FP is a little different, in that it works best as a rule of thumb about how much mutable state you have visible at any given time, rather than trying to turn it into a panacea. Basically, the right lesson to draw from functional programming (if you don't mind me changing metaphorical gears a bit here) is that the fewer things you change off-stage, the less disbelief the audience has to suspend, whereas if things start happening for no obvious narrative reason, they'll start noticing the inconsistencies rather than the story and the whole play falls to pieces. It has less to do with mathematical formalisms and more about keeping you inputs and outputs explicit as much as possible.
The problems come when vague general principles become dogma, which I am pretty sure is exactly what you are seeing as bullshit.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@ScholRLEA said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
FTFY. The difference between 'hard currency' and 'fiat money' is almost entirely imaginary, given that the value of hard currency depends on trust in the issuer's honesty and the acceptability of the currency to others just as surely as fiat money does.
The big thing that's different about them is their scarcity. Increasing supply of hard currency is usually more difficult, since you have to go find the stuff, and it's probably not super easy to get more of it or it wouldn't have become currency in the first place.
Fiat currency's scarcity is much easier to alter, though if you're dumb enough, you can even make that difficult (looking at you Venezuela).
-
This is a valid point, yes. The historical solution is to debase the currency and hope no one catches on, but the very existence of Gresham's Law as a principle of economics shows the weaknesses of that idea. Still, if people don't notice the coinage is debased, or conversely, if the faith in the currency is weakened for some other reason, the difference isn't huge.
Keep in mind, too, that ours is one of the few times where monetary exchange was more than minor part of the economy, and probably the only time in history where it has supplanted barter as the dominant means of exchange. Through most of the history of currency, the average person would never see either specie or scrip in their entire lives. Even in the urban centers, most people would only use coins for trade goods brought in from elsewhere, and even then only if necessary.
I don't intend to continue this conversation, but I'll respond to you if you want me to. I'd recommend forking the topic in that case, though.
-
Mysql Migration (article by uber engineers)
Excellent article on some of the problems uber encounteted when trying to scale postgresql. Can confirm the issue with memory usage and connection count.
-
Not only do we use InnoDB at Uber; it’s perhaps the most popular MySQL storage engine.
Like Postgres, InnoDB supports advanced features like MVCC and mutable data. An exhaustive discussion of InnoDB’s on-disk format is outside the scope of this article; instead, we’ll focus on its core differences from Postgres.
This guy uses a semi-colon incorrectly in one paragraph, then correctly in the following paragraph. This annoys me.
Anyway, it's a good article.
I'm shocked there's anything about MySQL that's actually better-designed than the same thing on Postgres.
-
@cartman82 and here's a reply by the postgres devs
The Uber guy is right that InnoDB handles this better as long as you don't touch the primary key (primary key updates in InnoDB are really bad).
This is a common problem case we don't have an answer for yet.
-
@bb36e said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
@cartman82 and here's a reply by the postgres devs
The Uber guy is right that InnoDB handles this better as long as you don't touch the primary key (primary key updates in InnoDB are really bad).
This is a common problem case we don't have an answer for yet.
Wait, why would someone update a primary key?
-
@blakeyrat Someone told me that mysql can handle much more low activity databases in a small server than postgresql, and that would be one of the reasons it's available in very cheap hosting services. I never cared enough to check.
-
@blakeyrat Main advantage of postgres is excellent language support, with lots of powerful features for programmers. I was less impressed with performance and tooling.
-
@cartman82 MySQL completely burned all bridges for me when I first tried it and it truncated my data with no warnings or errors.
-
@blakeyrat said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
@cartman82 MySQL completely burned all bridges for me when I first tried it and it truncated my data with no warnings or errors.
Right. MySQL language support is garbage.
My favorite is when they decided to limit user names to 15 chars, and just quietly truncate when you provide longer.
-
@cartman82 said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
(article by uber engineers)
If they're so "uber", they should've made Postgres work.
Filed under: showing myself out
-
I find it outrageous that women are separated from men in chess competitions as if men were inherently smarter. The sex apartheid is reminiscent of the subjugation and humiliation of women and it breaks my heart when I realize it still exists.
Not sure if Poe's Law or ...
-
women are separated from men in chess competitions as if women were inherently smarter.
There. Better?
Bonus: Quora is returning me an internal server error now.
-
@Zecc said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
There. Better?
Not really. The thing is, the vast majority of chess tournaments are open to whoever wants to sign up and has a paid-up chess federation membership (or is willing to pay for one). So the assumption behind the question is invalid.
-
@Zecc said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
women are separated from men in chess competitions as if women were inherently smarter.
There. Better?
Bonus: Quora is returning me an internal server error now.
Sounds like an improvement to me.
-
@antiquarian said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
So the assumption behind the question is invalid.
It's what I was pointing out in a circuitous manner.
Saying the separation of men and women is because 'they' think A is smarter than B may just as well be interpreted as a separation because 'they' think B is smarter than A.
The questioner is biased.
-
@Zecc I was thinking more about the assumption that there aren't any tournaments where both men and women are allowed to play, but the assumption you mention is probably even worse.
-
@ben_lubar said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
Wait, why would someone update a primary key?
Natural keys for the loss!
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/redditintensifies (disable mobile view if applicable)
-
-
First time I hear about this QUIC protocol. Based on UDP.
A nifty feature of QUIC is FEC or Forward Error Correction. Every packet that gets sent also includes enough data of the other packets so that a missing packet can be reconstructed without having to retransmit it.
This is essentially RAID 5 on the network level.
Because of this, there is a trade-off: each UDP packet contains more payload than is strictly necessary, because it accounts for the potential of missed packets that can more easily be recreated this way.The current ratio seems to be around 10 packets. So for every 10 UDP packets sent, there is enough data to reconstruct a missing packet. A 10% overhead, if you will.
Interesting.
-
@cartman82 said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
Interesting.
Indeed. Reminds me of the parity files you'd get on usenet downloads.
-
@anonymous234 said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/redditintensifies (disable mobile view if applicable)
NFC what you're talking about.
Filed under: No, I did not spend five minutes taking screenshots to get the page precisely aligned
-
@cartman82 Now watch fun ensue as folks run QUIC over SSL VPNs and suffer the FEC overhead without benefiting from it in any way :-)
-
@cartman82 said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
First time I hear about this QUIC protocol. Based on UDP.
A nifty feature of QUIC is FEC or Forward Error Correction. Every packet that gets sent also includes enough data of the other packets so that a missing packet can be reconstructed without having to retransmit it.
This is essentially RAID 5 on the network level.
Because of this, there is a trade-off: each UDP packet contains more payload than is strictly necessary, because it accounts for the potential of missed packets that can more easily be recreated this way.The current ratio seems to be around 10 packets. So for every 10 UDP packets sent, there is enough data to reconstruct a missing packet. A 10% overhead, if you will.
If it is FEC (and not just sending redundant data), overhead must be smaller,
Interesting.
Interesting
-
Evolution of hardware resulting in incomprehensible designs that nevertheless work in hugely constrained environments
-
This youtuber came up during our lunch walk today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q-ej1eihoU
-
-
@Jaloopa said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
Evolution of hardware resulting in incomprehensible designs that nevertheless work in hugely constrained environments
If they were designs they'd be replicable. Because they're adaptations, you need to train every individual part, preferably after it's already been installed in-system, over the entire desired range of operating temperatures, supply voltages and quite probably humidities, and you still wouldn't get 100% yield even from parts conforming 100% to manufacturer spec.
It's an interesting and thought-provoking technique, but I remain unconvinced that this ultimate distillation of works-on-my-machine is ever going to make notable contributions to engineering.
-
@flabdablet said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
If they were designs they'd be replicable. Because they're adaptations, you need to train every individual part, preferably after it's already been installed in-system, over the entire desired range of operating temperatures, supply voltages and quite probably humidities, and you still wouldn't get 100% yield even from parts conforming 100% to manufacturer spec.
The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, ... Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type.
No clock source, it is some weird-ass analog circuit
-
There’s an argument to be made that silly error messages are better than crashing browsers, but stacking layers of sand seems like a poor means of building robust software in the long term.
.....IPv6 is the future of the internet, so obviously we want to make sure that our malloc replacement is ready to go in IPv6 only environments. Time to throw away that legacy IPv4 malloc!
This carries on for a few minutes. libtalloc itself takes less than five seconds to compile, but the configure script will spend 100x that long probing for functions to get and set filesystem extended attributes.
-
@dse aha, another lobster?
-
-
@bb36e "What if you're a male model for Abercrombie?"
-
@flabdablet said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
It's an interesting and thought-provoking technique, but I remain unconvinced that this ultimate distillation of works-on-my-machine is ever going to make notable contributions to engineering
Yeah, seems like at best it could produce one off solutions to very specific problems. As a concept though, I love it.
-
@Jaloopa Interesting. This comes much closer to actual evolution than any other experiment I've seen, operating on an environment that no one really knows the rules of rather than a simple simulated world.
Humans generally beat evolutive systems, yet making a pseudo-analog FPGA like that would probably have taken us much longer.
-
@cartman82 said in 🔗 Quick links thread:
UDP
Funny how we keep referring to UDP as a "protocol" on the same category as TCP. Have you ever looked at UDP?
It's two port numbers and an optional, deprecated checksum. That's literally all that UDP adds to your packets.
In any other format these would be considered optional fields, not a separate protocol worthy of its own name.