The conventional wisdom of "buy equities regardless of price" doesn't make much sense to me. I can temporarily convince myself it's the smart thing to do, but the thought of putting my money into stocks just makes me sick for some reason. I can't do it.
I've missed out on a great deal of money hoarding cash instead of stocks, but I have peace of mind. The cost of inflation is worth that to me. I have felt that a crash -- a real crash, i.e. a change in public opinion about the equity markets -- has been just around the corner since 2016. I'm much less worried about the prospect of a dollar crash, even with today's inflation.
This is not investment advice and is only my personal opinion.
Keep in mind it's not a binary choice. You can exchange anywhere between 0 % and 100 % of your savings for some other asset class, like stocks. An extreme position in either direction is probably a mistake, but what about 20 %? 30 %?
The idea is not to get rich quick, nor is it to avoid any risk (because both are statistically impossible.)
The idea is to limit how much a crash of any type hurts, by having some savings also in other types of assets.
So for example, if your savings are $100 and you buy stocks for $30 of that, and the stock market crashes so you're down to $10 in stocks, now you only have $80 in savings. But you can use your cash savings to bootstrap your stock position back to 30 % again. If the market recovers, you get an outsize benefit from that.
(Similarly, if there should be some sort of dollar crash, you can probably use your stock market savings to bootstrap your dollar position again, putting you in a good position for recovery.)
Bravo. Peace of mind is an indirect cost of investment. I've met a brilliant head of engineering, that told me "I've sold all my stocks/coins so I can stop looking at my phone and reading articles, and I can really focus on what matters". Not having state bonds that allow people face inflation, has a HUge indirect cost: having offices full of nerds looking at stock/coin exchanges. How much human valuable time is now lost on that?
I really like FreeBSD. I would very much like to run it on one of my laptops, but wireless NIC driver support has been an issue, so I'm currently running OpenBSD on one instead. Next time I buy a laptop, I'll probably buy one that can run FreeBSD.
I once posted a nascent open-source project to reddit and it got shredded, but someone pointed me to some prior art. I studied the suggested materials, and thanks to that feedback my project was eventually successful. Now even CERN uses it in some LHCb software.
ShowHN needs comments like Paul's. Tact and expertise never come equally in the same package. We should appreciate this and grow some thicker skin in the meantime.
> Tact and expertise never come equally in the same package.
There is no reason at all for an expert to act like an asshole, and being an expert should not mean that bad behaviour should be tolerated from them. In fact, experts should be held to a higher standard, because they are examples people look up to.
But their feedback can still be useful even if it wasn’t delivered tactfully. It’s not wise to outright dismiss expert feedback simply because they were a little mean.
That begs the question, doesn't it? If someone visits your project and says "shame you're so ignorant of this topic, maybe read a textbook", it doesn't matter whether that person is the world's foremost expert or the town drunk, it's useless feedback either way.
Whereas, if the feedback was rude but also pinpoint-accurate and incredibly actionable, I don't think there'd be a big subthread about it.
Well the example you gave is bad feedback, and would be bad feedback from anyone. But that's not really the point of the discussion at hand, as I understood it. The discussion is about useful feedback that is delivered in a manner that may not be the most kind, but being unkind doesn't make useful feedback and less useful. After all, the feedback that sparked this discussion does seem like useful feedback even if it came across as a bit dismissive.
> the feedback that sparked this discussion does seem like useful feedback
The former was a summary of the latter. The "feedback" we're talking about gave no actual information about what the person thinks is wrong with TFA, it just said that TFA's author is ignorant and maybe look at XYZ.
Did you watch through to the end of the video? They show an example of using a different dataset, and it looks much less like a dashcam. I'm amazed by the results.
Computed gotos are commonly used in main loops of bytecode interpreters to get a separate dispatch (indirect jump) at the end of handling each bytecode, so the CPU's branch target buffer has a better chance of predicting the indirect jump target for the next bytecode based on the previous bytecode. For instance, CPython's dispatch loop uses computed goto on supported platforms, and Erlang's BEAM VM (in non-JIT mode) uses computed branch labels to convert bytecodes into branch addresses at bytecode load time.
I suppose, for twice the latency, CPU designers could implement (a hash of) the previous branch address from the source instruction pointer as part of the BTB tag, similar to using the global branch history as part of the state in the branch predictor. Presumably, the global branch history could also be used in the BTB tag to give some hint as to which bytecode we've just finished executing.
Though, where it really counts, interpreter writers are already often using computed gotos, reducing the reward to cost ratio for implementing such specialized BTB improvements.
On the other hand,
while (1) {
switch (...) {
...
}
}
is probably rare enough (and almost certainly in a hot loop) that a very specific optimization flag might be better than a syntactic extension. Granted, an optimization flag doesn't work for Erlang's threaded code use case.
We see CNN over here for ages too but they really clipped during the trumps presidency. Probably so much attention by that clown made them think they shall be the messiah who bring him down now matter what and how they report. They really weren't that bad before imo.
jQuery is fantastic. I am not a web programmer by trade, but I can always get busy with jQuery and just a couple of Google searches.
Last weekend I was trying to find new car dealerships in my region that carried a particular model of car that I'm interested in. They had a dealer search page that could return all dealerships within 250 miles, and they had an inventory search page that had hardcoded the 3 nearest dealership IDs into the URL. But they had no GUI to search all the cars for all the dealers in my region.
I poked around at the elements on the dealership search page, cobbled together a jQuery one-liner to dump all the dealership IDs in my region, and pasted those into the URL to finally see every individual car in my region of the model I wanted. The page took quite a while to load, so probably have have some DoS vulnerabilities to deal with, but at least I was happy.
Vanilla javascript would have been so much more cumbersome!
Templates are the killer feature of C++. They add incredible power to the language, but also dramatically increase its complexity. Templates are only superficially similar to generics in C#/Java. They are essentially a type-safe, Turing-complete, syntactically-constrained macro system deeply embedded into the grammar of the language.
Few other programming languages offer a similar feature. C++ pulled it off with an ISO standard and multiple conformant implementations.
Templates are loved by many, but they are a contender (along with UB) for the most hated C++ feature due to complexity.
> You'll have to search very long to find a C++ game code-base that uses boost, game devs are not that stupid ;)
Boost has over 160 libraries and counting. I wouldn't recommend every one of them (some have wacky interfaces, slow compile times, and/or experimental designs), but many of them are excellent, and I don't think it's very difficult to tell them apart.
Regardless, I find your insinuation that Boost users are "stupid" to be extraordinarily uncharitable to library users and developers.
I've missed out on a great deal of money hoarding cash instead of stocks, but I have peace of mind. The cost of inflation is worth that to me. I have felt that a crash -- a real crash, i.e. a change in public opinion about the equity markets -- has been just around the corner since 2016. I'm much less worried about the prospect of a dollar crash, even with today's inflation.
This is not investment advice and is only my personal opinion.