The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
from the console can let me see the file list, but not do anything with them.
What can't you do with the files?
I'm not defending macOS's inability here (I generally just let it extract the file as it's not a big deal) I'm just curious.
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
What does that say that macOS can't even do that?
It can do many things with different archive types that Windows can't even imagine.
-
@loopback0 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
from the console can let me see the file list, but not do anything with them.
What can't you do with the files?
I'm not defending macOS's inability here (I generally just let it extract the file as it's not a big deal) I'm just curious.
I can't open them and (for instance) decide that I don't want that version, or that it's has the right version of a particular script inside. Which I can do in Windows. Or add or remove files from the archive.
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
What does that say that macOS can't even do that?
It can do many things with different archive types that Windows can't even imagine.None of which I've ever needed to do, except when dealing with software written in Linux, so
-
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Filed under: from the “whats’s a right click” people
Oh, that's like with a two-finger tap gesture, except for old fogeys?
-
@dkf said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Filed under: from the “whats’s a right click” people
Oh, that's like with a two-finger tap gesture, except for old fogeys?
That only works because multi-touch didn’t require changing how the touchpad looks.
Filed under: the ideal shape of a MacBook would just be a thin, solid plate of aluminum
-
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Filed under: the ideal shape of a MacBook would just be a thin, solid plate of
aluminumtitaniumFTFY. Aluminium is for plebs who don't wear rollnecks, according to the ghost of Blessed Steve.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Or add or remove files from the archive.
You can do this on the command line.
-
@loopback0 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Or add or remove files from the archive.
You can do this on the command line.
Again, arcane commands and annoyance.
But that's ok to know.
All of this is one of the biggest things I hate about Apple products--they're designed to have one right way. And any other way is painful.
Windows--I can treat an archive like any other folder, with some limits. Mac--not so much.
-
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@dkf said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Filed under: from the “whats’s a right click” people
Oh, that's like with a two-finger tap gesture, except for old fogeys?
That only works because multi-touch didn’t require changing how the touchpad looks.
Filed under: the ideal shape of a MacBook would just be a thin, solid plate of aluminum
So... An iPad?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@dkf said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Filed under: from the “whats’s a right click” people
Oh, that's like with a two-finger tap gesture, except for old fogeys?
That only works because multi-touch didn’t require changing how the touchpad looks.
Filed under: the ideal shape of a MacBook would just be a thin, solid plate of aluminum
So... An iPad?
iPads have user interfaces and screens. The ideal is an object that the user can't interact with at all--that way they can't screw anything up and can just glory in the beauty of everything Apple.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Again, arcane commands and annoyance.
But that's ok to know.Like I said, I wasn't defending its inability. Just pointing it out.
I guess how arcane it is depends on whether you're used to Unix/Linux or Windows.
-
@loopback0 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Again, arcane commands and annoyance.
But that's ok to know.Like I said, I wasn't defending its inability. Just pointing it out.
I guess how arcane it is depends on whether you're used to Unix/Linux or Windows.
Or AmigaOS?
-
AmigaOS, really? Does your perversion knows no bounds?
-
@Zerosquare said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
AmigaOS, really? Does your perversion knows no bounds?
Sex just got boring after a while, so I branched out.
-
@loopback0 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
It can do many things with different archive types that Windows can't even imagine.
Kink thread is
-
@HardwareGeek said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
where’s the WTFs?
Writing a GUI application in Perl; isn't that enough of a ?
PerlTk is indeed a huge bag of crack. I used it for my first job at university to build a user administration GUI for the helpdesk, without really understanding OOP Perl.
Glade OTOH was really nice to work with. At a time when practically all GUI builders produced pixel-exact shit that would break as soon as you changed the font (alternatively, not allow it and use the exact same UI on 640x480 and 1600x1200 screens), Glade did it mostly right and had very usable Perl bindings.Also, having committed that , abandoning a nearly working project so close to completion.
80/20. Happens more often than not.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
All of this is one of the biggest things I hate about Apple products--they're designed to have one right way. And any other way is painful.
This has the advantage that you don’t get lost in a maze of different ways to accomplish things, or be presented with a ton of options that you may not know how to use or wonder about what they do. You have an archive file? You double-click it and you get its contents — done.
And if you do want more options, you can always install a program made for (and probably by) people who share that feeling. Nothing is stopping you from installing something like The Unarchiver or BetterZip (other solutions are available) and using it in place of the Archive Utility that comes with the OS.
Windows--I can treat an archive like any other folder, with some limits. Mac--not so much.
This is a complaint in the same category as, “Windows, I can just click in the upper right corner of a window and it closes. Mac—not so much.” IOW: different systems, different capabilities and solutions.
-
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
the ideal shape of a MacBook would just be a thin, solid plate of aluminum
Edit: , of course...
-
@Gurth said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
This is a complaint in the same category as, “Windows, I can just click in the upper right corner of a window and it closes. Mac—not so much.” IOW: different systems, different capabilities and solutions.
Okay, that's left side vs right side, but otherwise the same. On the other hand, windows has a maximize button, whereas on mac you can either go full-screen with the green thingy or double-click the title bar to get wish-it-were-maximize-but-really-who-knows-what-it-does.
-
I ported Forth to a 1980s synthesizer. It made sense at the time.
6809 ftw.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Atazhaia said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
citric acid
This also sounds unappealing...
Citric acid is pretty fucking useful in a kitchen. Just add a bit to the water when you're boiling green veggies to preserve their color (you can also use lemon juice for that, but why use something more expensive and less effective?) and it's great for de-calcifying electric kettles (you really shouldn't use lemon juice for that).
-
@LaoC said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
At a time when practically all GUI builders produced pixel-exact shit that would break as soon as you changed the font (alternatively, not allow it and use the exact same UI on 640x480 and 1600x1200 screens), Glade did it mostly right and had very usable Perl bindings.
The "doing resizing right" is a key common feature of the Tk library.
-
@dfdub said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
it's great for de-calcifying electric kettles (you really shouldn't use lemon juice for that).
You can use vinegar for it though.
-
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Gurth said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
This is a complaint in the same category as, “Windows, I can just click in the upper right corner of a window and it closes. Mac—not so much.” IOW: different systems, different capabilities and solutions.
Okay, that's left side vs right side, but otherwise the same. On the other hand, windows has a maximize button, whereas on mac you can either go full-screen with the green thingy or double-click the title bar to get wish-it-were-maximize-but-really-who-knows-what-it-does.
Windows lets you double-click the title bar to maximize the window, too.
-
@djls45 … and they are the same maximize. While on Mac they are different. Long live consistency.
-
@Bulb said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@djls45 … and they are the same maximize. While on Mac they are different. Long live consistency.
Not only that, windows lets you snap windows with either keyboard or mouse. Mac? Not without 3rd party software that doesn't always work well.
-
The most absurd thing I've ever coded... I don't know. I've got several contenders.
First are several programs that I wrote or helped write for my programming classes in college:- a side-scrolling space shooter written in C++ that used pictures of foods and kitchen appliances as the sprites (team project)
- a bill/check tracking program written in C#, using LINQ and a local SQL Server database (MDB file) (team project)
- an ARM processor emulator written in C++ (single project)
Then there's a couple that I've done for myself or others:
- an .ini file editor that provides a list of sections along the left side for quick access. It was written in C++, but I started converting it to C# so I could use a syntax highlighting library.
- a day-trading program written in C# that submitted the trades using a REST API for a day-trading website and implemented an algorithm that supposedly would make trades that would always come out even or ahead. The algorithm doesn't really work, but it was a fun project to put together nonetheless.
- perhaps everything for my job qualifies? It's a server-side Java application with a Flex frontend (Flash or HTML, according to login type) and a SQL Server database (earlier versions used Oracle). The newest version drops Flex for fancy HTML that looks like the Flash version for all login types.
-
@djls45 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
a side-scrolling space shooter written in C++ that used pictures of foods and kitchen appliances as the sprites (team project)
"Shooting game with weird sprites" is a long-standing tradition of game development. My personal example is "Big Bread Hunter", from one of the early courses in my university education.
-
@Jaloopa I thought about, at one point, basically writing a run-time version of XAML like that.
The furthest I actually got along those lines was a redesign of the old ODBC connection dialog. I was developing an application designed to work with multiple databases and wanted to have something like an OpenFileDialog for them. The window took an array of structures, where each structure defined a label, control type, and list of acceptable values, and used that to fill in a TableLayoutPanel*. When you were done, it would loop through the controls and return a structure containing an ADO connection object, .NET type, and connection string.
*This wasn't my first choice. I wanted a DataGridView. But no matter what a few CodeProject-type articles say, its control hosting capabilities are absolutely column-based.
Then I fell down the "let's reinvent ALL of user32 and the shell" rabbit hole. Soon I had a DLL that produced its own process list, service list, etc.
What finally made me step back was trying to make what I'd call a responsive PictureBox. I wanted a PictureBox that was sized based on an aspect ratio relative to other controls. So, you take an old style layout with a menu or buttons down the left and content (a picture) on the right. I wanted 2 100x25 buttons to make it 25x50 and 10 100x25 buttons to make it 125x250. It was supposed to take the proposed size passed by the event, pick which dimension was closer to the native picture's dimensions, and adjust the other to fit the appropriate ratio. For whatever reason, I could only get that to work in one direction. I had some weird stack overflows even getting that far, where sometimes one resize would trigger a loop where it just kept going until it crashed the process.
I had so many problems with the designer, I was going to go back to the old way of defining windows, with MFC macros or constructing window handles sequentially.
-
@dkf said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@LaoC said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
At a time when practically all GUI builders produced pixel-exact shit that would break as soon as you changed the font (alternatively, not allow it and use the exact same UI on 640x480 and 1600x1200 screens), Glade did it mostly right and had very usable Perl bindings.
The "doing resizing right" is a key common feature of the Tk library.
I did notice it's tolerant of different resolutions but TBH I wouldn't even know how to, say, change the default widget font in Tk, and 5 minutes of googling didn't turn up anything useful so I guess it's not a widely known thing. X properties?
-
@Bulb said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@dfdub said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
it's great for de-calcifying electric kettles (you really shouldn't use lemon juice for that).
You can use vinegar for it though.
If you want to inhale acetic acid for some reason, then yes. Otherwise, use citric acid, that should be safer.
-
@LaoC Which default? There are a few that are used in different circumstances. They are initialized from the system theme on Windows and macOS; that stuff is too fragmented on Linux and KDE and Gnome don't make it easy, so a "reasonable" bland choice is used there. (It also depends on Xft working correctly and fontconfig doing the right thing.)
But it will involve
font configure
(or however that is called in your language embedding of choice) whatever you're doing. More details here, including the standard list of default fonts.
-
@Bulb said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@djls45 … and they are the same maximize. While on Mac they are different. Long live consistency.
Not only are they different, the titlebar-doubleclick produces different results between different programs — even between different Apple programs. Do it in the Finder and it maximises the window height but keeps the width the same; in Safari, it maximises the height and makes the window slightly wider; in Numbers or Calendar, it puts the window over the whole part of the screen that’s not occupied by the the menu bar and Dock; try it in iTunes and nothing happens.
The difference between this kind of fullscreen (as in Numbers and Calendar) and clicking the green button is that the latter also hides the Dock and menu bar — in fact, it puts the app on a desktop of its own. I can see the logic behind this bit, and it’s consistent: the green button is for when you want to use the app full-screen and see nothing else.
Personally, I don’t see the point of fullscreen for almost anything other than games or movies, and so would actually prefer to have the old (ca 10+ years ago) behaviour of the green button back, namely that it would resize the window to fit the contents, or go back to previous size if clicked again. I’ve long suspected that its repurposing to making the window fullscreen is a concession to the Windows people who began moving to Macs in ever larger numbers, and who don’t seem to have figured out that having a fullscreen window with almost nothing in it is not only a waste of space and efficiency, but a good reason to buy sunglasses.
-
@djls45 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Gurth said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
This is a complaint in the same category as, “Windows, I can just click in the upper right corner of a window and it closes. Mac—not so much.” IOW: different systems, different capabilities and solutions.
Okay, that's left side vs right side, but otherwise the same. On the other hand, windows has a maximize button, whereas on mac you can either go full-screen with the green thingy or double-click the title bar to get wish-it-were-maximize-but-really-who-knows-what-it-does.
Windows lets you double-click the title bar to maximize the window, too.
The point is that on mac it doesn't maximize but does who-knows-what vaguely related to maximize.
-
@dkf said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@LaoC Which default? There are a few that are used in different circumstances. They are initialized from the system theme on Windows and macOS; that stuff is too fragmented on Linux and KDE and Gnome don't make it easy, so a "reasonable" bland choice is used there. (It also depends on Xft working correctly and fontconfig doing the right thing.)
But it will involve
font configure
(or however that is called in your language embedding of choice) whatever you're doing. More details here, including the standard list of default fonts.Yeah, that's the one thing I found, but that's the easier case that's supported pretty much everywhere: to have the developer decide on the font to use. I was wondering about how to do it as a user the way I can use
.gtkrc
or whatever does that for QT.
-
@Gurth said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
don’t seem to have figured out that having a fullscreen window with almost nothing in it is not only a waste of space and efficiency, but a good reason to buy sunglasses.
Most application main windows have enough content to fill the screen. Or will quickly change to a state where they do; e.g. finder may be showing just a few entries, but I don't want it to change size when I select another folder with more entries. And dialogs generally start sized to content already.
-
@djls45 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
a day-trading program written in C# that submitted the trades using a REST API for a day-trading website and implemented an algorithm that supposedly would make trades that would always come out even or ahead. The algorithm doesn't really work, but it was a fun project to put together nonetheless.
I'm no trading expert, but I suspect that this algorithm is something akin to a perpetual movement machine...
(not that it cannot be a fun project to try and build one, but I wouldn't get my hopes too high)
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@dkf said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@topspin said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
Filed under: from the “whats’s a right click” people
Oh, that's like with a two-finger tap gesture, except for old fogeys?
That only works because multi-touch didn’t require changing how the touchpad looks.
Filed under: the ideal shape of a MacBook would just be a thin, solid plate of aluminum
So... An iPad?
iPads have user interfaces and screens. The ideal is an object that the user can't interact with at all--that way they can't screw anything up and can just glory in the beauty of everything Apple.
-
@Bulb said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Gurth said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
don’t seem to have figured out that having a fullscreen window with almost nothing in it is not only a waste of space and efficiency, but a good reason to buy sunglasses.
Most application main windows have enough content to fill the screen. Or will quickly change to a state where they do; e.g. finder may be showing just a few entries, but I don't want it to change size when I select another folder with more entries. And dialogs generally start sized to content already.
That is completely not what I was talking about. I meant the kind of behaviour where people habitually maximise windows when there is absolutely no need to — say, having an Explorer window with four files in it, but maximising it anyway before doing anything with them, then minimising or closing the maximised window to get at another maximised window behind it. Which tends to leave me thinking: if you didn’t have both windows maximised, you could have them both visible at the same time and just move your mouse cursor from one to the other.
-
@Gurth said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Bulb said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@Gurth said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
don’t seem to have figured out that having a fullscreen window with almost nothing in it is not only a waste of space and efficiency, but a good reason to buy sunglasses.
Most application main windows have enough content to fill the screen. Or will quickly change to a state where they do; e.g. finder may be showing just a few entries, but I don't want it to change size when I select another folder with more entries. And dialogs generally start sized to content already.
That is completely not what I was talking about. I meant the kind of behaviour where people habitually maximise windows when there is absolutely no need to — say, having an Explorer window with four files in it, but maximising it anyway before doing anything with them, then minimising or closing the maximised window to get at another maximised window behind it. Which tends to leave me thinking: if you didn’t have both windows maximised, you could have them both visible at the same time and just move your mouse cursor from one to the other.
i.e. the people Windows 8 was designed for
-
@remi said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
I suspect that this algorithm is something akin to a perpetual movement machine...
(not that it cannot be a fun project to try and build one, but I wouldn't get my hopes too high)
Some years ago I had a hard time explaining to someone that if you connected the shafts of an electric motor and a dynamo, then connected them electrically, they wouldn’t keep running. Unfortunately we never did get round to building it.
-
@remi said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@djls45 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
a day-trading program written in C# that submitted the trades using a REST API for a day-trading website and implemented an algorithm that supposedly would make trades that would always come out even or ahead. The algorithm doesn't really work, but it was a fun project to put together nonetheless.
I'm no trading expert, but I suspect that this algorithm is something akin to a perpetual movement machine...
That was my first thought as well. And the proof isn't even hard, just suppose everybody on an exchange uses it.
-
@Gurth said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
an electric motor and a dynamo
Aren't those structurally identical, with the only difference being which direction the energy flows and is converted?
-
@LaoC said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@remi said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@djls45 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
a day-trading program written in C# that submitted the trades using a REST API for a day-trading website and implemented an algorithm that supposedly would make trades that would always come out even or ahead. The algorithm doesn't really work, but it was a fun project to put together nonetheless.
I'm no trading expert, but I suspect that this algorithm is something akin to a perpetual movement machine...
That was my first thought as well. And the proof isn't even hard, just suppose everybody on an exchange uses it.
It works if there's a third option: never sell
Buy some stocks at random, only sell when the price has gone up
-
It's more complicated than that. Stocks have intrinsic value, they pay dividends. The difference between the stock price and the dividend reflects market opinions about future dividends/the probability of being able to sell it to someone else. Stockfighter before they changed their name and then folded(sad story there, but a familiar one) had a CTF that was all about high frequency trading, and it was very illuminating.
Most HFT make money doing something called 'market making' which is where you buy like 5 shares of X for Y$, and then sell 4 of them for Y+Z$ and offer to buy any shares of X at Y-Z$. Anyone who thinks the price of X is going to change from Y by more than Z buys from or sells to you. The trick is to sell services like 'I'll buy/sell 100k shares of X without moving the price' by pretending to be a market maker, and then as a market maker not to fall for that. Others do dumb shit like 'if honda goes up on the chicago exchange, all honda is probably going to go up on the New York exchange' which is secretly in new jersey. This doesn't have to make sense or even be right except statistically, because trades are fixed cost no matter how many shares you buy or sell. If you have enough money the fact that most fluctuations are random balances out and the 1% that is actual information 'steel tariffs relaxed' 'new steel mill opened' makes you money. If you do this enough times a second you make money. You make enough money to drill holes through mountains for fiber optic between chicago and new york, for example.
The whole thing is a waste of human effort, if you ask me. People who work in it say things like 'transmitting information to the investor more rapidly' but like, no? Your algorithms don't read the news.
-
@remi said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@djls45 said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
a day-trading program written in C# that submitted the trades using a REST API for a day-trading website and implemented an algorithm that supposedly would make trades that would always come out even or ahead. The algorithm doesn't really work, but it was a fun project to put together nonetheless.
I'm no trading expert, but I suspect that this algorithm is something akin to a perpetual movement machine...
(not that it cannot be a fun project to try and build one, but I wouldn't get my hopes too high)
You would be right. It's supposedly an "unbeatable" system by some day-trading
scammerteacher who sells his "classes" and put a "sneak peek preview" on YouTube. Some friends of mine were convinced that it would work, and they offered to pay me to make a program that would implement it, instead of buying his >$1k subscription package.Basically, you would start by choosing to buy or sell, and then it would check the price and act according to the rules I implemented. If you start by buying, and the stock just goes up, it would sell when the price passed a certain threshold. If a setting was configured to continue trading, it would then re-buy at the new price and wait for it to keep going up, that way you would continue to make money as the stock continued climbing. If the direction turned and went down far enough, then it would sell enough to get back the original purchase price and then wait for the price to fall far enough to make the same desired profit. If it then goes up, at a new threshold, it will buy enough to cover the sell and then wait for the price to go high enough to make the desired profit. Et cetera. And then when you're done, you can click a "Stop" button, and it will clear any outstanding trades (cover any shorts or sell any currently-held stocks).
As you can imagine, each stage would grow quite quickly, so it was still going after 5 cycles, it would just drop out, clearing the trades and starting over from the beginning at the newest price. It would work if a stock were weirdly volatile with multiple, slow, large growths and shrinkages in value. If stocks are wildly volatile, wobbling a lot or going up and down very quickly, as day-traded stocks are wont to do, then the system fails miserably, losing the trader lots of money very quickly. Nearly everything in the program was configurable, so they could try to find the "sweet spot" of values that would work best. I don't think they tried it for very long after I got it to them and showed them how to use it, because their tests on their paper-trading account consistently lost money, no matter what settings they used.
-
@AyGeePlus said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
drill holes through mountains [...] between chicago and new york
If you had mentioned Denver or Salt Lake City and Seattle or San Francisco then drilling holes through mountains would make more sense, because there's actually real mountains that might be worthwhile to drill through there.
-
@djls45 Well, unless you're a Flat-Earther, the Earth curvature is enough to make some sort of mountains you could dig through when going from Chicago to NY. Although given that they're fairly close to each other (800 mi / 1200 km), I'm not sure how deep the tunnel would actually go, it might be more a trench than a tunnel...
-
@remi said in The Most Absurd Thing You've Ever Coded/Built:
@djls45 Well, unless you're a Flat-Earther, the Earth curvature is enough to make some sort of mountains you could dig through when going from Chicago to NY. Although given that they're fairly close to each other (800 mi / 1200 km), I'm not sure how deep the tunnel would actually go, it might be more a trench than a tunnel...
True, but the difference between the signal propagation speeds around the earth's curve and across such a chord is so minuscule as to be negligible.
-
Tevye:
Where are you going?Lazar Wolf:
Chicago. In America.Tevye:
Chicago, America? We are going to New York, America. We'll be neighbors!-- Fiddler on the Roof
-
@Mason_Wheeler Our division has two offices in the Midwest that are nearly 1,000 miles apart. Our parent company is headquartered on the East Coast and clearly has no sense of scale. They once wanted to fly an IT worker out to my location in City A to do a task, then they'd have him drive over to the City B office "real quick" to do the same thing there before driving back to City A for his flight home.