Apple stand
-
@Jaloopa said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced.
Which is as irrelevant to whether Android is more buggy than iPhone as anything could possibly be. And yet someone has made it their argument. To which I replied. To which you replied, so I assumed you must be at least as retarded as the first person if you believe that.
I believe exactly what I said, not some cockamamie interpretation of yours.
And what you said is that you didn't care to check what the discussion is about before chiming in. And didn't bother mentioning it until two pages later.
Huh. More shit I never said. No one could have predicted that.
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Let's not.
Let's instead talk about software products like people who know a thing or two about their life-cycle.I tried at first but apparently some people here cannot comprehend how knowing that more code increases bug count doesn't let you determine number of bugs with just code size alone.
Is that what you thought you were doing? Now that I know what strawman you were addressing some things make more sense.
Is it still a strawman if somebody is seriously making that point in a discussion?
Of course not. I'll admit to not reading all of the thread super carefully (vacation is more than regular ). I just assumed you meant that I'd made that point.
Yes, it's not surprising that you would misinterpret the post where I gave you an out to claim that you were talking about stuff other people said instead of embarrassing yourself by denying the obvious and trivial truth of what I had posted.
It would make sense if you didn't
QUOTE ME TALKING TO SOMEONE ELSE AND SAY THAT WHAT I SAID THERE TO THAT OTHER PERSON IS WRONG
Which is the same as you agreeing with that other person.
Yes. There are always exactly two sides to any disagreement and disagreeing with one person is exactly the same as agreeing in all aspects with the other person
When literally the only thing you're saying is "what you said isn't true", then yes, it is just two sides. @boomzilla haven't given any indication that he's talking about something else than the person I was replying to there. Quite the opposite - what he wrote heavily suggested that yes he is indeed talking about the very same thing.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
But since there are no tests
Don't worry (or do!?). I've no tests to speak of in my current project (business critical very multi-threaded web service) either. Unsurprisingly, it has the same fate - mysterious errors from the series of "how did it even work so far" and exceptions I didn't even know existed in pretty much every feature update. I suppose I should be glad they don't happen all at once. I think there is a common reason for this, but I can't quite put a finger on it...
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Apple stand:
I can't quite put a finger on it...
FWIW most of my code has been mostly bug-free. I usually come across bugs in other people's code. I do my best to avoid committing if there's obvious problems...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
most of my code has been mostly bug-free
I can't quite tell if that's arrogance or madness of a genius.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
FWIW most of my code has been mostly bug-free.
Type declarations don't count.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
most of my code has been mostly bug-free
I can't quite tell if that's arrogance or madness of a genius.
Yes.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
FWIW most of my code has been mostly bug-free.
Type declarations don't count.
Do POCOs count?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
FWIW most of my code has been mostly bug-free.
Type declarations don't count.
Do POCOs count?
You write bug-free POCOs? Liar.
-
@MrL said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
FWIW most of my code has been mostly bug-free.
Type declarations don't count.
Do POCOs count?
You write bug-free POCOs? Liar.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
Is it so hard to grasp that "a feature" can have negative value?
This is an underrated point. Counterintuitively, one of Apple's biggest strengths in the Steve Jobs days was his ability to put the kibosh on any feature creep outside of his vision. Sure, some good features were missed or delayed, but what they did have was extremely polished. Meanwhile, Google was busy merging and splitting 19 different messaging apps and bundling non-uninstallable HP printer garbage with its OS updates.
-
@hungrier said in Apple stand:
Sure, some good features were missed or delayed, but what they did have was extremely polished.
Yeah, phones that stop working when you touch them just scream 'extremely polished design'.
-
@hungrier said in Apple stand:
Google was busy merging and splitting 19 different messaging apps
Ah yes, the good old days when there were only 19 messaging apps.
-
@MrL said in Apple stand:
@hungrier said in Apple stand:
Sure, some good features were missed or delayed, but what they did have was extremely polished.
Yeah, phones that stop working when you touch them just scream 'extremely polished design'.
: You're exploding it wrong.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
More power is objectively better than less power.
I thought it is common knowledge that inexperienced drivers are quite likely to crash supercars with too much power. So no, even "more power" as an individual parameter is not always objectively better.
-
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
More power is objectively better than less power.
I thought it is common knowledge that inexperienced drivers are quite likely to crash supercars with too much power.
I was thinking more in 50-200HP category, not supercars. Though if we were to continue this software-car analogy, supercars being hard isn't a problem with power - it's a problem with UX.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
@Luhmann said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
What does this count as?
Since you didn't state you fixed the exposed bug, the total bug count went up
Well, I think the bug is fixed. Observation so indicates. But since there are no tests (INB4 ) I cannot guarantee it is so.
Even if there were tests, you could only, at best, state that the specific circumstances tested are fixed. Tests can be incomplete or buggy, too, you know.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
More power is objectively better than less power.
Fitting a GE F414 22000-pound thrust afterburning turbofan engine to your Cessna 150 would give you more power than the 100 horsepower 4-cylinder piston engine it came with. However, that power would rip the wings off of it, which I'm pretty sure is objectively worse. Although that might be just my opinion.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Apple stand:
However, that power would rip the wings off of it, which I'm pretty sure is objectively
worsemore entertaining.Sounds better to me.
-
@mott555 You can be the test pilot.
-
@HardwareGeek I'd think the fuel tanks on the Cessna would barely start up the engines before depleting. However, I guess that also makes your point.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
I'd think the fuel tanks on the Cessna would barely start up the engines before depleting.
Don't top-fuel dragsters only carry enough fuel for a single run? I bet it would run long enough to make a run at a drag strip. And I bet nobody's ever raced a top-fuel dragster with a Cessna 150.
-
@mott555 Possibly. Do those dragsters actually use jet turbines you'd actually attach to a commercial airliner, though, or are they more specifically designed for dragsters?
I suppose seeing starting a jet turbine actually requires more of an air bleed valve from an APU or GPU, you probably don't need much fuel to start it, and it'd be coming from an external source, you might actually be able to throttle it afterall.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
starting a jet turbine actually requires more of an air bleed valve from a [..] GPU
I know some high-end NVIDIA cards have pretty big fans, but I don't think even the biggest ones move enough air to start a jet engine.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
Possibly. Do those dragsters actually use jet turbines you'd actually attach to a commercial airliner, though, or are they more specifically designed for dragsters?
The jet dragsters I crew on are much older design straight-turbojets, airliner engines are all turbofans these days. The only custom bit on our engines is really the afterburner, which are all designed from scratch. We end up with fuel still in the tanks after a run, the exact amount really depends on how much of a flame-n-smoke show you do on the line before going for it.
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
I suppose seeing starting a jet turbine actually requires more of an air bleed valve from an APU or GPU,
Smaller ones actually tend to be electric start, air starters are only for the really big boys. My engines at home are all electric. The demands are pretty ridiculous though, 600A at 24V with a peak current of over one thousand amps. 70mm2 cable is a must.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Higher fuel consumption is objectively worse.
Is it?
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
However, more cylinders means more power
Not necessarily.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
if I put 24 cylinders in my Polo it will be "objectively better", because more is better.
If you remove all cylinders, it will be even better
-
@HardwareGeek said in Apple stand:
However, that power would rip the wings off of it, which I'm pretty sure is objectively worse.
Not necessarily.
Once the wings are ripped off, you can't take off, so, in a sense, it's more secure
-
@Cursorkeys said in Apple stand:
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
I suppose seeing starting a jet turbine actually requires more of an air bleed valve from an APU or GPU,
Smaller ones actually tend to be electric start, air starters are only for the really big boys. My engines at home are all electric. The demands are pretty ridiculous though, 600A at 24V with a peak current of over one thousand amps. 70mm2 cable is a must.
Do you have to switch off every single lightswitch and appliance in your house to draw that kind of power, assuming you have 200A/120V service like most modern homes do?
-
@TimeBandit What kind of Wankel designs an engine like that?
-
@HardwareGeek said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
More power is objectively better than less power.
Fitting a GE F414 22000-pound thrust afterburning turbofan engine to your Cessna 150 would give you more power than the 100 horsepower 4-cylinder piston engine it came with.
Yes, of course. And more power is objectively better, all other things (including not breaking in half when throttle is full and not losing control while driving) being equal. Of course they won't be actually equal. Aircraft engine is too different from car engine. There are way, way, way, way, way more things changing all at once for it to make such comparison. But you still can objectively compare power alone. And when comparing power alone and literally nothing else, more power is objectively better.
-
@loopback0 said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Higher fuel consumption is objectively worse.
Is it?
Yes. There is never a case where you'd want your car to burn more fuel, everything else being equal.
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
However, more cylinders means more power
Not necessarily.
Yes, you're right. That only makes @topspin's post even more retarded.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Yes. There is never a case where you'd want your car to burn more fuel, everything else being equal.
I like my car to burn more fuel when I press down on the throttle. Otherwise the throttle's kind of useless.
-
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
I like my car to burn more fuel when I press down on the throttle. Otherwise the throttle's kind of useless.
You`re gonna be shocked when you discover electric cars
-
@TimeBandit Probably not, they're usually pretty well insulated. It might burst into flames, though.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
Do you have to switch off every single lightswitch and appliance in your house to draw that kind of power, assuming you have 200A/120V service like most modern homes do?
I have a bank of 4 of these bad boys (series-parallel) for my engines:
For the dragsters we use a van with a load of lorry batteries in the back. I'm not a fan of those because I can barely lift the buggers:
-
@TimeBandit said in Apple stand:
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
I like my car to burn more fuel when I press down on the throttle. Otherwise the throttle's kind of useless.
You`re gonna be shocked when you discover electric cars
I live right next to a fire station. The current crop of electric cars need better autopilots before I can have one.
-
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Yes. There is never a case where you'd want your car to burn more fuel, everything else being equal.
I like my car to burn more fuel when I press down on the throttle. Otherwise the throttle's kind of useless.
Everything else being equal, including the speed you're going at.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
However, more cylinders means more power
Not necessarily.
Yes, you're right. That only makes
@topspin's@Gąska's post even more retarded.FTFY
-
@topspin it wasn't me that suggested putting 24 cylinder engine in Polo, was it?
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin it wasn't me that suggested putting 24 cylinder engine in Polo, was it?
Well, it's obviously stupid, so I didn't really suggest it for anyone who doesn't follow your more is better logic. And you wanted to talk about cylinders separately.
Maybe you didn't understand what scare quotes are. Or what sarcasm is.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
And you wanted to talk about cylinders separately.
Cylinders. Not engine swapping. You're grossly misrepresenting what I say and you know it.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
if I put 24 cylinders in my Polo it will be "objectively better", because more is better.
The mallet is made of two more-or-less cylindrical pieces, but I can't envision how adding more cylinders would improve it. And I'm not sure how you could usefully attach cylinders to the pony at all.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Yes. There is never a case where you'd want your car to burn more fuel, everything else being equal.
That depends. All modern cars are configured to run lean for emission reasons, and the knock sensors deal with the problems it causes. So most cars will run better if you fatten the AFR (air/fuel ratio), but they will also burn more fuel.
The depends here is because there are no other changes done but increase the fuel in the AFR, so I would consider it all things being equal, but the engine will run smoother and produce a couple more hp so it could be argued that it isn't equal. And fattening the AFR beyond a certain point will only help slightly with cooling and nothing else and at that point it's pretty useless to increase the fuel burn, imho.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
There is never a case where you'd want your car to burn more fuel, everything else being equal
What about that episode of top gear where if they ran out of fuel before they got to Chernobyl they didn't have to drive through it?
-
@Jaloopa said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
There is never a case where you'd want your car to burn more fuel, everything else being equal
What about that episode of top gear where if they ran out of fuel before they got to Chernobyl they didn't have to drive through it?
It's not like going through Chernobyl would affect those clowns much.
-
@TimeBandit said in Apple stand:
Once the wings are ripped off, you can't take off, so, in a sense, it's more secure
Not sure about that. 22k pounds of force is 98k Newtons. A Cessna 150 weighs around 500kg from what I could find. Seems like you could take off if you pointed that thing in the right direction.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Though if we were to continue this software-car analogy, supercars being hard isn't a problem with power - it's a problem with UX.
Or a problem with wannabe power users…
-
@Carnage said in Apple stand:
The depends here is because there are no other changes done but increase the fuel in the AFR, so I would consider it all things being equal
But it's kind of a different thing here. AFR is a kind of an input parameter - kinda like choosing encryption key size. It's one thing, but it affects several output metrics. Not really the same thing as comparing two products for their viability. Sure, you always have many different metrics to compare by, and you should compare all of them - but you can compare each metric separately. And each metric separately can be compared completely objectively (if it's the right kind - ie. measurable). Most (but not all) measurable metrics also have a clear direction in which it's better - whether it should ideally be high or low. Tradeoffs aren't done because individual metrics cannot determine which value is better. Tradeoffs are done because there are many different metrics, each perfectly objective and with a clear answer on its own, but when brought together, they contradict each other about which product/solution is better, and then comes the subjective element of weighing the importance of particular metrics against each other, taking into consideration both what the metric represents but also how big the difference is. But while this overall aggregate comparison is usually subjective (except in the rare case where all available metrics point in the same direction), comparing individual metrics can be done completely objectively. That's my entire point.
-
@dkf said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Though if we were to continue this software-car analogy, supercars being hard isn't a problem with power - it's a problem with UX.
Or a problem with wannabe power users…
Technically it's also about user experience...
-
@Jaloopa OT: I watched the hysterically acclaimed Chernobyl TV drama. The first two episodes are really, really, really good. Then it quickly goes cheap and stale (miners with a Scottish accent? Badmouthing the regime at the workplace? Covering the Minister of Coal with dust? Epic scene but bah! The lead scientist theatrically deadpan suggesting use of human liquidators while he carries on reading a report?). But the first two episodes are top notch.