But it really resonates with my personality.
No-one else adds ham like I add ham. Oooh the hams I have added. Never will you have ever seen a ham more added than when I've finished with it.
I AM THE ADDER OF HAM.
But it really resonates with my personality.
No-one else adds ham like I add ham. Oooh the hams I have added. Never will you have ever seen a ham more added than when I've finished with it.
I AM THE ADDER OF HAM.
Once you're out of the room, don't forget to shout until your voice is hoarse, then get on that horse and ride away.
Can I get a version of that at 184x184 pixels?
I'd like to make it my steam avatar.
Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
@Mo6eB said:
...whom stuff...
Easy rule of thumb, that doesn't rely on non language scholars (e.g. virtually everyone) understanding nominative or dative:
If you wish to put who/whom in a sentence, try using he/him instead, then replace he with who, and him with whom.
So "he dislikes this interface" becomes "who dislikes this interface", since "him dislikes this interface" is wrong.
If you start your own bank, are you allowed to do the fractional reserve thing? That might make it quite entertaining.
@blakeyrat said:
You're kind of an asshole, aren't you?
So, the real WTF is coming onto TheDailyWTF, and expecting not to find WTFs daily?
WTFs within WTFs round here... eventually we'll get a recursive one, and the universe will end.
@morbiuswilters said:
What does it matter if they're ISO 8601 or not? Why should this even matter to you? Are you unable to comprehend a date format that isn't ISO 8601?
I would hazard that anyone who is capable of understanding what ISO 8601 is likely to have no problem comprehending any other date format, but on the contrary, understands all such formats well enough to see why ISO 8601 is the most sensible.
It doesn't matter what date format this site uses at all, because this site is inherently a place for people to waste time, so it's no big deal really.
However, if you do have a dropdown which allows you to select between 9 different date formats, and NONE of them happen to be the internationally settled upon standard, but there are a bunch of choices that absolutely no-one uses, then that's a WTF.
I don't generally like to link XKCD stuff, because its a bit passé, but the sheer number of incorrect choices reminds me of: [url]http://xkcd.com/1179/[/url]
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:Maybe it's like Go's version of goto; there if you really want it, or if you're insane?Why the fuck are you using new(T)? This isn't Java. Use the constructor function.If you're not supposed to usenew
, then why is it there?
@shimon said:
TRWTF is that Tuskistan is still in the EU.
What exactly IS Tuskistan, what is the meaning of your comment, and how is it in any way relevant?
No no no no noooooo.
if (bolParam == true)
{
bolReturn = false;
}
else if (bolPaam == false)
{
bolReturn = true;
}
else
{
throw new BoolNotReversedException();
}
(I wish I knew how to make these forums work properly without too much fucking around)
"This is the first concrete example in biology of such a sophisticated arithmetic calculation," said mathematical modeller Prof Martin Howard, of the John Innes Centre.
Er... except... ahem... people.
@TDWTF123 said:
The BBC explained it badly, as always, and you understood worse.
@ochrist said:
It's also explained here:
That explains it slightly better. Although, I'm am interested to note that the two molecules responsible for this haven't actually been discovered. So the question is, what the fuck HAS been discovered? This appears to be just a blue-sky theory, with a possible mechanism proposed to fit the available data, but which is pretty fucking far from proven. The theory isn't even complete enough to start trying to prove it.
Since I'm in the mood to be harsh (as I'm sure there was quite a lot more research that went into this), but it sounds like a couple of undergraduates had a lovely daydream during a biology lecture about starch, wrote down what the imagined, and submitted it to Scientific American.
Regardless, they're still not doing maths though. They're not even doing arithmetic. It is a homeostatic (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) process, describable by division. That's it.
I'd still like to hear that he has a strongly smelling yellow liquid in his water cooler though. That'd be highly satisfactory.
@tgolisch said:
Books have a face. You could punch the book in the face. That counts.
We have a winner!
I am now going to browse my companies library to see if I can find an appropriate tome to punish.
@drurowin said:
@joe.edwards said:
You should have recorded it with your smartphone. It could have gone viral.No cameras of any kind past security, otherwise you'd have pics of the toilet doors already. :(
Eh? So, since pretty much everyone has a smartphone these days (even more so in the world of tech), what happens? Do they confiscate your phone on entry? Is this defense-related work?
I hope somebody laughed scornfully at that last announcement? I'd have started snickering gently, but obviously enough to attract attention, then slowly crescendoed through giggling into a full barrelled maniacal belly laugh... Possibly finishing with a few sighs of relief and an "oh you GUYS! You're really KILLING IT!"
In my view, an entertainingly recounted lie is still better than everyone else's usual pile of drearily related truth.
@RobFreundlich said:
It took Zimmerman 1:04 to get from his truck to that spot, and then another 0:12 to get to the "lost him" point, according to the map. That's a total of 1:16 for him to walk back to his truck, get in, and wait for the police. What was he doing for those four minutes you cite (or, rather, the remaining 2:44 of them)? Whether he was wandering around such that Martin could hunt him, or walking around hunting Martin is irrelevant to my main thesis: he should have gone back to his truck and waited, and an actual member of Neighborhood Watch, as opposed to a self-appointed "neighborhood watch captain", would have known to do that, and would have been sitting safely in his car when the police arrived.
@RobFreundlich said:
As such, Zimmerman bears some large portion of the responsibility for this death. I'm not going to make any claims at all about whether Trayvon Martin does as well, because I have no actual facts (no-one does). Perhaps if I had more facts, I would feel that Martin bore some responsibility for his own death; without those facts, I simply cannot form an opinion.
Hmm... I'm not going to argue one way or the other, as I'm not familiar with the case. HOWEVER, your second paragraph does not follow from the first.
It simply is not fair to say that Person A should have been waiting in his car, therefore he is largely responsible for person B's death. It is patently obvious that doesn't follow.
Why should he have been waiting in his car? Why shouldn't he be allowed to walk around his neighborhood?
What the fuck does being in a neighborhood on foot, and being in a neighborhood in a car have to do with responsibility?
@PJH said:
@eViLegion said:Who are these people (I'm assuming they're some bizarre subset of your fellow countrymen (and also that you're American))?Typically Americans. And both your assumptions are spectacularly wrong.
Apologies if I offended. I just figured you were American, since you'd met enough Americans stupid enough to think everyone black must be African American.
Oh well. If I'm going to be wrong, it might as well be spectacularly.
@joe.edwards said:
Better to understand why it is correct than learn substitution tricks IMHO.
I agree, but not necessarily quicker to teach.
The substitution trick is a lot easier to both remember, and put into practice.
People already understand the words "he" and "him", and can make a small leap to understand the analogous "who" and "whom". Whereas it's harder to learn all of the technical terms related to grammar. I mean... the rule that I've set out makes no reference to the comparatively meaningless words like "genitive". (By meaningless, I mean if you say them to most people they'll just ignore you because you're effectively talking gobbledygook.)
If the people in question aren't really interested in understanding why but just want to use the words correctly (virtually everyone), then a simple rule is more appropriate.
Actually you're both wrong.
Condition 3 should be: "Given a choice of goat doors, it doesn't matter what method is used to choose between them, so long as the player does not know that method".
This is to ensure that if, for example,
@PalmerEldritch said:
I've already given an example (several times). In the problem as stated (you pick Door1, Monty opens Door3) if the probability that Monty opens Door3 if the car is behind Door1 = 1 then there is no benefit in switching to Door2 . I even reposted the Bayesian analysis from Wikipedia that shows that to be the case.
No... the problem as stated says you can pick ANY door, and monty will reveal one of the other doors with a goat.
"Pick door 1, Monty reveals 3" is just given as one example of what MIGHT happen during a possible game. You need to consider all other possible combinations.
If you contrive to say that the "player MUST pick door 1, and Monty MUST reveal door 3, should the player now switch?" then you'll get a very different result, but it stops being The Monty Hall Problem.
How do I "pick a door" if you're saying "you picked #1"? If you're telling me I picked #1, then I didn't pick it... you picked it.
The word "say" in "say No. 1" and "say No. 3" means "for example" not "this is the way it has to happen every time".
There is no interesting maths/probability in the problem as you're contriving to state it.
So, basically, you're just trolling now, but putting too much effort into doing it for it to score very highly.
@dkf said:
It's much more important to assume that the initial placement of cars and goats is random (with uniform distribution).
I just imagined Monty Hall distributing some kind of uniform to the goats for them to wear. This would immeasurably improve the game.
I listen to his New World Symphony every now and then... it's pretty good.
@blakeyrat said:
Build a ballkiller (wire up his balls to your 110 volt power cord) (There's a chance it'll blast his cock off. But eh.)
FTFY
... you're not even allowed to chose ISO 8601.
The drop down lists a number of date formats, including YEAR-MONTH-DAY with no leading zeros, but no ISO 8601.
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22991838]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22991838[/url]
This article has annoyed the fuck out of me today. All the papers seem to be covering it, and all of them are just as retarded.
Basically, the article says that plants regulate their usage of food overnight, according to "some equation" which isn't given.
Then they make mention of 2 molecules used to do this, which haven't apparently yet been discovered, but which have single letter names.
All of this, somehow, leads to the conclusion that the plants are "doing math(s)".
Noone seems to have noticed the difference between a process, and a mathematical description of a process.
What in the name of fuck has happened to science?
It depends what you mean by escape...
There are a lot of companies out there who have the same problems. The reality is that top management generally doesn't want to have to do anything, which is why they hire people to do it for them... the only problem is, hiring and promoting people is something that they ALSO don't want to have to do... so they farm off hiring to an HR department, which usually doesn't have enough domain knowledge to hire the right people (hence you get absolute bilge checked into source control)... and they put zero effort into picking who to promote, by randomly selecting the first name their subconscious mind gives them (usually the dickhead "life-and-soul of the Christmas party" guy who made sure to ply them with drinks).
Never does it cross their minds that the quiet guy who's name they cant quite remember should be promoted... mainly because they don't remember his name, but also because they themselves have lost touch with the cutting edge of technology (if they were ever in touch) and so wouldn't be able to differentiate between good code and a kick in the balls, even if presented to them side by side.
Escape means leaving that company, and hopefully finding one where the people are alright... you'll never find a company where the codebase is perfect, and where you agree with every managerial decision, but you could at least find somewhere with a balance you can deal with! Whatever you do - don't stop practicing and improving (from the sound of it, there is no chance of that... you sound like the type who'll learn new tech skills regardless of if someones paying you for it). There ARE employers out there looking for enthusiastic techies like yourself. Its just that the only way you're gonna find them is by going out and finding them.
Improving your skills doesn't make you the fool... it makes you one of the few sane people in a foolish world. I know what you mean though - when you see some talentless fucker getting all the credit and all the money for having told you to do something that he can't... you probably will never escape that, as the world is inherently unfair like that. The only thing you can do is minimise your exposure to such unfairness, so you can shrug it off and not care so much when you see it.
I found a role coding games for consoles and PC (result!). Generally the company's code base is pretty good, and the senior coders and managers have got to their positions by being competent and hardworking. So, I escaped by taking a pay cut, ditching web and application development, and doing something a bit more difficult... but crucially a lot more fun and interesting, and almost entirely devoid of horrific WTFs. Any WTFs I do come across I don't mind, because I believe in the enjoyment people will get when they play the finished product... as opposed to the mind-numbing awfulness experienced by users of some tedious web application. So, I took a year out to relearn C++, open GL and directx (and sit on my arse playing games), I had to take a pay cut, but I'm really enjoying myself.
For steam it really doesn't matter...
Client: most of the time it does nothing anyway, just sits there quietly, occasionally polling the server for something it needs. Whenever it does do something, it is usually your bandwidth which acts as your speed bottleneck, so there would be no improvement to be gained by making it quicker.
Server: actually a large cluster of machines doing different things... doesn't need to be particularly efficient, as you can just shove more machines into the cluster if you want better performance.
For a game neither of these conditions apply... you can't simply expect an end user to try and bolt extra machines onto the side of their machine to improve performance (aside from the fact it wouldn't work, its also commercially ridiculous). In a game, potentially every instruction matters... by which i mean, every tiny improvement in speed you can get means a fraction of an extra frame rendered per second. One or two instructions might not make that big a difference on their own, but if you've got 5 nested loops being called every frame, then it does usually make a lot of sense to try and trim that down.
England... where people say both dude, and wank. We import a lot of words, thereby becoming the best at language.
The bugginess of Skyrim wasn't even the engine. It was the scripts that ran on the engine. Almost certainly these will have been maintained by two completely different teams, working in two different languages, with the ones who've got a clue put on the engine team, and the interns put on the scripts (because its less dangerous that way). So likely as not, each type of fix (make engine faster/fix stupid mission errors) required a totally different human resource to fix it (I guess the engine guys probably could fix the mission errors, but who wants to go trawling through reams of interns script?).
You seem to love jumping to the conclusion that people have "missed your point" as though your points are somehow so insightfully complex that the person to whom you address it can't possibly have understood. Maybe they dismissed your point as angrily stating the obvious with foghorn subtlety, without actually saying anything of merit or interest to the person to whom you say it?
Anyway... is the source of your anger because someone uses C++, thus slightly increasing development time and slightly decreasing code maintainability? If so, then I think you're kinda missing the point that there simply is no other language with the power and available tools, which will allow you to craft a common code-base across all the available gaming platforms. So its kinda retarded to say people should be using another language, until such time as another language can be easily made to work on ALL of those platforms.