TehPers

The “‘modern’ development stack” we used at my school when I was in a CS program was C++98 or something, compiled using gcc directly. This was in the last decade. It technically wasn’t C!

But we did use C in my computer engineering classes so I guess they technically did teach it. I feel very fortunate that I haven’t needed to use it since then.

I have no idea how doable this is, but are you able to 3d print them?

Framework 16 laptops come with a 180W charger. The laptop itself might not draw that much (depends on your laptop configuration and settings), but the charger can draw that much to charge the laptop if needed.

Not quite 200W, but there are more powerful laptops on the market than the ones Framework sells.

Adding a single unused function should no effect on runtime performance. The compiler removes dead code during compilation, and there’s no concept at runtime anyway of “creating a function” since it’s just a compile-time construct to group reusable code (generally speaking - yes the pedants will be right when they say functions appear in the compiled output, to some extent).

Anyway, this can all be tested on Godbolt anyway if you want to verify yourself. Make a function with and without a nested unused function and check the output.

I can think of a few things I dislike about MTG as a whole (3yr standard and general powercreep of the format comes to mind), but my complaints about specifically Arena would be:

• Cost. I’d probably play more if sets didn’t cost more than an entire new game on Steam to get the preorder bundles. Why are boosters so damn expensive?
• Grind. The F2P way to get cards is to grind like a madman to get your daily wins and finish the quests. The problem is I prefer slower decks, and I’m not going to play monored for my daily chore if I can just play a different game entirely.
• BO1 standard. This is more of a personal opinion, but I wish they’d keep a separate banlist for BO1. They’ve done it in the past with Nexus of Fate, but BO1 is so dense with aggro decks. Unfortunately, the daily wins system incentivizes more quick games rather than fewer interesting games, so I understand why these aggro decks are so popular. Maybe changing the daily wins system would solve this as well without the need for a separate banlist?

Someone I know failed an algebra exam for using calculus to get the vertex of a parabola. It’d be one thing if the reason was that it wasn’t a method that was taught yet, but the teacher straight up didn’t know any calculus and failed them by saying it was nonsense.

From the article:

Western-owned brands manufactured in China, such as BMW and Tesla

Looks like you’re safe buying a Tesla.

I was expecting a meme about how few cards actually have “phasing” (and phase in/out automatically in the untap step). Instead it’s a list of cards that make things phase out.

The list is a little more practical this way, but I’m still disappointed that WOTC dropped “phasing” itself entirely instead of trying to revisit it now that they’ve started printing cards that phase things out. They could have revisited the phasing lands idea with a tapped Ancient Tomb with phasing (and no self damage), or added cards that grant your opponent’s permanents phasing (like [[Teferi’s Curse]]).

Sorry if I’m missing some sarcasm here, but if this is all you have to contribute, then as a professional software developer, I’d much rather work with the author of the article on a daily basis.

Or look at Python and their urllib, urllib2, new urllib, and the requests package on PyPi.

We already sort of saw this in Rust with crossbeam and standard channels, until of course they replaced the standard lib implementation with crossbeam’s implementation.

Hey look, the classic “America bad” comment on a post critical of China!

Are these people bots or something? It’s possible to be critical of both at different times.

I think it’s good to document why things are done, but extracting things out into another function is just documenting what is being done with extra steps. This also comes with a number of problems:

1. Not all languages are readable. Documenting what is being done is important in some C, or when working with some libraries that have confusing usage syntax.
2. Not all people reading the code know the language or libraries well. Those people need guidance to understand what the code is trying to do. Function names can of course do this, but…
3. Not all types can be named in all languages. Some languages have a concept of “opaque types”, which explicitly have no name. If parameter and return types must be specified in that language, working around that restriction may result in unnecessarily complicated code.
4. Longer files (the result of having dozens of single-use functions) are less readable. Related logic is now detached into pointers that go all over the file all because of an allergic reaction to code comments, where a simple // or # would have made the code just as readable.
5. Function names can be just as outdated as code comments. Both require upkeep. Speaking from personal experience, I’ve seen some truly misleading/incorrect function names.

If those functions are huge units of work or pretty complex, I can agree. For most cases though, a simple code comment should do to explain what’s going on?

My friend’s homophobic dad was diagnosed with HIV right before his wife filed for divorce. They had a long discussion about how he got it, and he admitted to it being another guy. She was very lucky not to have HIV as well.

There does exist a correlation, but like all generalizations, it does not apply to all cases and can come off dismissive, rude, or minimizing when it isn’t actually true. I find that it’s best to avoid sweeping generalizations for people at all.

I think accessibility is widely misunderstood. The way I view it, it’s not only about giving people who need them more ways to access something, but also giving people who want/prefer them those methods as well.

One example of this is wheelchair ramps. Building the ramps benefits those who need them by giving those people a way to go up/down an incline, but many people use the ramps. The ramps are also for those who would prefer to avoid the stairs.

Digital tools are another example of this, and a great one. Keyboard accessibility is a must for people with visual impairments, but also a preference for many who prefer not to move their hand to the mouse constantly. Keyboard-accessible tools are almost always a better experience to all users as a result.

Not building for accessibility is honestly just lazy. It shows that you don’t care about your customers, and you don’t want them to have a good experience. At best, you want to force your experience on them and only your experience is allowed (my biggest gripe with Apple products honestly).

As for digital art, I’ve seen a lot of what you mentioned, and I think it’s honestly been going on for centuries at this point. It’s problematic, especially because not everyone wants to create art in the One True Manner™ and may want to experiment with new ways to create art, or may want the art as a part of a larger project and don’t really care about the means (as long as it’s ethical).

While impressive, a minifier can bring it down to 1 line of JS! I do like that this can function as a reference for making simple canvas-based games though.

While I agree, it makes connecting to localhost as easy as http://0:8080/ (for port 8080, but omit for port 80).

I worry that changing this will cause more CVEs like the octal IP addresses incident.

Edit: looks like it’s only being blocked for outgoing requests from websites, which seems like it’ll have a much more reasonable impact.

Edit 2: skimming through these PRs, at least for WebKit, I don’t see tests for shorthand IPs like 0 (and no Apple device to test with). What are the chances they missed those…?

What’s wrong with putting tampons in the men’s restrooms at schools? Won’t they come in handy if there is a shooting?

Anyway, this reads to me like free advertising for Walz.

(Disclaimer: do not try to use a tampon to patch a bullet wound)

Imagine how different the story would be if they compensated people for this data. “10% off Geforce NOW if you let us use your gameplay footage as training data!” (for example)

This is obviously cheaper and there’s way more data to train with, but it just continues to skirt a line in copyright law that desperately needs to be tested.

I think MH3 is really just showcasing the absurd powercreep in these MH sets. MH2 turned Modern into a MH2 format, and now we’re seeing that with MH3. The difference with MH3 is they released it to more formats (arena ones, like historic, timeless, and brawl).

I know they just want to sell packs, but format warping cards should be banned. They shouldn’t just print more format warping cards to replace them.