I don't know, I'm not convinced with this argument.
The "ugly" version with the switch seems much preferable to me.
It's simple, works, has way less moving parts and does not require complex machinery to be built into the language. I'm open to being convinced otherwise but as it stands I'm not seeing any horrible problems with it.
no.
it was the first question I asked and was given a satisfactory explanation (along the lines of, "this adds things to your program that help it write text to the screen.")
I'm most familiar with software and home electronics debugging, but it would be wonderful to hear some stories from other disciplines where a culprit is found, and also about the forensic tools specific to other domains.
mmap is not a language feature. it is also full of its own pitfalls that you need to be aware of. recommended reading: https://db.cs.cmu.edu/mmap-cidr2022/
I have really just one wish when it comes to syntax: no syntactically significant whitespace. Space, newline, tab, etc. should ALL map to the same exact token. In practice this also means semicolons or something like them are needed as well, to separate expressions/statements. I dislike langs that try to insert semicolons for you, but at least it's better than the alternative.
the way python treats whitespace is a huge design mistake that has probably wasted like a century (if not more) worth of time across all users, on something really trivial.
I agree, that I do not like automatic semicolon insertion (in my opinion it is one of the worst features of JavaScript, and possibly the really worst one), and I think it is a good idea that you should use semicolons or whatever to separate expressions and statements (except for a programming language where it is already unambiguous (e.g. because you are required to have brackets around them instead), in which case it is unnecessary).
However, spaces, line breaks, tabs, page breaks, etc are not normally tokens (and should not be tokens), but will separate tokens.
However, that is not the only issue with the syntax, although it is a significant one.
Yeah I misused the term "token". What I really meant is that they should just be token separator and nothing more (i.e. once we encounter whitespace it means the current token has ended)
That's one of the things I like about C, the independence in how one can write code. I was able to develop my own style thanks to that, visualising the structure of the code to distinguish the different parts of statements and make it more clear (at least to myself).
(edited several times to try to correct changes in formatting for an example here, but it's just screwed up :-/ )
when you read this and its follow-up "driver" as a commentary on how capitalism removes persons from their humanity, it's as relevant as it was on day one.
The woman herself says she never had a problem with it being famous. The actual test image is obviously not porn, either. But anything to look progressive, I guess.
> Forsén stated in the 2019 documentary film Losing Lena, "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too... Let's commit to losing me."
> Lena is no longer used as a test image because it's porn.
The Lenna test image can be seen over the text "Click above for the original as a TIFF image." at [0]. If you consider that to be porn, then I find your opinion on what is and is not porn to be worthless.
The test image is a cropped portion of porn, but if a safe-for-work image would be porn but for what you can't see in the image, then any picture of any human ever is porn as we're all nude under our clothes.
For additional commentary (published in 1996) on the history and controversy about the image, see [1].
I agree that not all nudity is porn - nudity is porn if the primary intent of that nudity is sexual gratification. When the nudity in question was a Playboy magazine centerfold, the primary intent is fairly obvious.
I can't see how that would it be porn either, it's nudity.
There's nudity in the Sixtine chapel and I would find it hilarious if it was considered porn.
It's interesting because where I'm from, there was "erotica" and there was "porn". This image would at best be erotica. It would not be considered porn.
Like in US supreme Court "I know it when I see it", definition isn't straight forward but it has elements of "is it depiction of a sexual act or simply nudity ", as well as any artistic quality. Generally, erotica has high production values and porn less so.
Anyhoo! What a weird place for discussion to end up :-). The story is excellent and very hacker news appropriate, but his entire opus is pretty good. There's a bit of deus ex machine in some of qntm's work, but generally they have the right mix of surreal and puzzling and cryptic and interesting to engage a computer geek's mind :-).
the "porn" angle is very funny to me, since there is nothing pornographic or inapropriate about the image. when I was young, I used to think it was some researcher's wife whom he loved so much he decide to use her picture absolutely everywhere.
it's sufficient to say that the person depicted has withdrawn their consent for that image to be used, and that should put an end to the conversation.
is that how consent works? I would have expected licenses would override that. although it's possible that the original use as a test image may have violated whatever contract she had with her producer in the first place.
she did not explicitly consent for that photo to be used in computer graphics research or millions of sample projects. moreover, the whole legality of using that image for those purposes is murky because I doubt anyone ever received proper license from the actual rights-holder (playboy magazine). so the best way to go about this is just common-sense good-faith approach: if the person depicted asks you to please knock it off, you just do it, unless you actively want to be a giant a-hole to them.
No, because the replacement value of those things to others is very high, and generally outweighs Carrie Fisher's objection. But we should take her objection into consideration going forwards. The Lena test image is very easy to replace, and it's not all that culturally significant: there's no reason to keep using it, unless we need to replicate historical benchmarks.
The "ugly" version with the switch seems much preferable to me. It's simple, works, has way less moving parts and does not require complex machinery to be built into the language. I'm open to being convinced otherwise but as it stands I'm not seeing any horrible problems with it.
reply