This reminds me why I keep going back to C. C++ features often clash with each other (especially using object oriented features with classic C), but from the C programmer's point of view the additional features don't really add too much but end up massively constraining the user.
The only thing I ever miss from C++ is a way of guaranteeing that some code is run at every exit path of a function. I guess this is why zig became so popular among C developers.
It is astoundingly intellectually dishonest for anybody who identifies with the American right, which espouses values of personal responsibility and the rights of organizations such as companies and universities to self-govern, to imply that a direct application of these values is "authoritarian".
Free speech is understood as the ability to express yourself and your beliefs without consequences from the government, it has never meant to practically anyone that it means that as a culture no individual or organization will take action against you. This is personal responsibility in action, you must be prepared to shoulder the consequences of what you say and do.
People losing their jobs in universities and otherwise for expressing certain beliefs is not somehow unique to the American political left of the preceding decade, and it is strange that people have been misled into thinking that it is. Of course it is regrettable that some people may have lost their jobs engaging in good-faith reasoned expression of their beliefs, but you cannot argue that this is somehow the result of "the left".
I intentionally make no judgment here on whether I believe the climate that existed on American college campuses during that time is something desirable, but people doing things that you do not like is not "being actually authoritarian".
The name for this effect appears to be the "Preparedness Paradox" [1]. The effect where people attribute the minimal or reduced harm due to some problem to the problem not having been that serious, instead of attributing it to the essential work performed by other people to prevent the worst disaster.
A very funny depiction of this effect is in the hilarious episode "Charlie Work" of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia where the titular Charlie Kelly works tirelessly to have their bar pass health inspection, only to have the other main characters shrug and say "But we always pass health inspection".
Nope, there is only one single thing that has prevented that since 9/11, everything else is security theater and BS.
On 9/10/2001, the assumption was that if someone was trying to hijack a plane, they were planning to ransom the passengers as hostages, so you should let them take over the plane so the hijackers don't hurt the passengers who fight back.
As of 9/11, the assumption is that they want to fly the plane into a building and kill everyone on it, so if someone tries to hijack a plane, everyone on the plane knows to fight them to the death with suitcases and shoelaces and now you can't hijack a plane anymore so there is no point in trying.
I agree 9/11 bred a lot of security theater, but I also don't buy the "one single thing" stopping terrorists from hijacking a plane is fear of a battle with passengers.
Pre 9/11 an attempted hijacking would "just" be a harrowing tale (because of your own reasoning). Post 9/11 even an unsuccessful attempt would create an overwhelming wave of fear, panic, and paranoia for the very same reason you argue people would be willing to fight to the death.
We just had two terrorist attacks this week and it's already falling off the news cycle: I don't think that'd be the case if the public had been given flashbacks to 9/11.
> Post 9/11 even an unsuccessful attempt would create an overwhelming wave of fear, panic, and paranoia for the very same reason you argue people would be willing to fight to the death.
There were unsuccessful attempts. Shoe bomber etc. -- passengers and flight staff stopped them.
I was just talking about the "preparedness paradox" that the parent was referring to. Whatever reason you attribute it to, heightened security or more vigilant passengers, the fact that it hasn't happened means we can't prove that it wouldn't happen in the absence of either of those things. Both arguments are counterfactual, so people begin to take it for granted that "no further work was required to prevent fill in the blank from happening."
Eh, that's probably more of a trade off. The door is typically going to be unlocked during the flight anyway so the pilots can get their meals and use the head, and then you're creating a risk that a hijacker gets into the cockpit and locks the door behind them.
Whereas it's already pretty hard for a hijacker to access the controls after the passengers kill them.
This is an overly paranoid response to someone suggesting to have compassion for others as a form of self-care. The idea is that worrying exessively about yourself can be harmful in itself, not "allow yourself to be exploited".
It's more in the vein of advice you get on the plane - when oxygen masks drop you need to put the mask first before putting another over the face of someone you care for.
In that analogy, compassion and love are the oxygen. If you hold on to anger and defensiveness in order to "fend for yourself" it's like failing to put on your oxygen mask because you hold on to your valuables, thinking someone is going to steal them in the middle of a plane crash.
Well you could've stated it that way from the get go. As it stands your comment reads like a strong denial of helping others in favor of helping yourself.
I believe you are mistaken. This set of numbers is just the set of reals minus the countable infinity of finitely representable numbers. This set should still be densely ordered and so for any member that could be chosen from this set, there is an infinite number of elements closer to zero.
i think you have an extraneous 0. It would not make sense for it to take a longer time to get from 1,000,000,000 to 2,000,000,000 than from the unix epoch to 1,000,000,000.
The time I think you meant to post is Wed May 18 2033 03:33:20 UTC+0000 (Greenwich Mean Time).
I also use GNU Stow + Git and has worked well for me. For files I want to sync that I don't need versioning for and it is important that I have them available even in cases where I may have forgotten to commit my changes on some individual machine, I use Syncthing[1], which is really great for the more Dropbox-y kind of cross-machine sync that I also have a need for.
It would be nice to have explanations and comparisons of the techniques that are employed for the current behavior and the new behavior. The color gradient criticism feels valid from an aesthetic standpoint but the problem seems to be that a simple linear interpolation doesn't provide the desired color properties. This raises the question as to what exactly are the desired color properties from a technical standpoint and when is each technique applicable. Say we changed all color interpolations from an interpolation in RGB space to HSV space (as I imagine the color gradients suggested are achieved), would this have any unforeseen consequences?
It's not RGB that is "broken", it's the typical RGB color space used in practice, sRGB and similar, is "broken": because they are not in linear space.
The value of your nominal R,G,B number is the result of using the original "intensity" (brightness or similar) and then raise it to the power of gamma (typically 1/2.2). The purpose of this is to give more "bits" around lower end (darker end) where human eyes are more sensitive [1]. If we don't do gamma and have relatively low bit depth (like your typical 8-bit), it's very easy to produce banding at dark gradient areas.
Up to this point, there is nothing wrong.
However, if you want to average two colors (which affects almost all the operations that can happen on bitmap images, including gradient, blending, resizing, blurring, etc...), the correct way, just like real-world physics, is to average them in original linear form/value; but most of applications/implementations, as shown in this page, are just averaging their nominal "gamma'd" values.
[1] There is often a common belief to say that the introducing of gamma space historically was because of how CRT screen used to work (the relationship between electricity intensity and brightness etc.). But most of in-depth articles about this topic say that's just a coincidence.
Wow, yeah. I have done some hobby work with digital colors and rendering and I had no idea how used to the visual artifacts from math done on sRGB values directly I was that I just assumed a "fancy" transformation. Thanks for the insight.
The webpage appears to be made to serve as a warning to data-driven businesses to not fall into the same perverse set of incentives that McNamara created, to encourage business managers to diversify their accounts of the success of their business beyond just the quantitative narrative.
I'd be more cynical and suspect this is some kind of elaborate SEO strategy. Submit the site to social networks -> wait till gets some love from the Google algorithm -> put ads on it -> profit.
Possible, but this seems of rather a niche interest for a successful SEO strategy. I could grant that it would then be targeted specifically at the HN sort of social networks.
