ben0x539 · HackerTrans

Can you control the timing of queries across two db instances well enough to expect the tables to be identical?

screenshot of finishing with 4 strokes / 6 par (tho my locked-in daily result was 14 strokes).

The video is bouncing the ball of a wall right at the start to make it jump over the wall, water, and corner behind the start, to skip most of the track.

ben0x539

先月議論

https://i.imgur.com/PzlgXnD.png skill issue

edit: https://i.imgur.com/9xnntqB.mp4 fairly reliable trick shot

ben0x539

2 か月前議論

I imagine people will immediately patch out the auth requirement once the auth servers go away for good.

ben0x539

2 か月前議論

I bet we'd see a bunch of unexpected breakage in presumed-to-be-lower-level-than-http[s] infrastructure so that eg. your legacy IRC server goes down because it's running on rented hardware and the hosting provider's operations rely on some internal http services.

ben0x539

2 か月前議論

Say what you will about github-the-source-control-platform, github-the-unified-login-for-bugtrackers has been a huge success.

ben0x539

5 か月前議論

> edit: I removed the author’s name from this post

well, you didn't from the search query.

ben0x539

8 か月前議論

In your experience, is there a lot of contention over whether a given issue counts as a bug fix or a feature/improvement? In the article, some of the examples were saving people a few clicks in a frequent process, or updating documentation. Naively, I expect that in an environment where bug fixes get infinite priority, those wouldn't count as bugs, so they would potentially stick around forever too.

ben0x539

10 か月前議論

That is some "every element apart from helium and hydrogen is a metal" taxonomy!

ben0x539

10 か月前議論

You know that "Fachkräfte" doesn't mean immigrants, right?

ben0x539

昨年議論

At my last job, a lot of our web services also benefited immensely from in-process caches and batching (to be fair, some of them were the cache for downstream services), and their scaling requirements pretty much dominated our budget.

I can totally see how the cgi-bin process-per-request model is viable in a lot of places, but when it isn't, the difference can be vast. I don't think we'd have benefited from the easier concurrency either, but that's probably just because it was all golang to begin with.

ben0x539

昨年議論

When admitting fault with your a PR hat on after pissing off a decent(?) number of your paying customers, you're supposed to fully fall on your own sword, not assign blame to factors outside of your control.

Instead of saying "race condition that appears on very slow internet connections", you might say "race condition caused by real-world network latencies that our in-office testing didn't reveal" or some shit.

ben0x539

3 年前議論

> The Tolkien estate then filed a separate lawsuit against Polychron for all physical and digital copies of The Fellowship of the King to be destroyed

Huh, is this a thing? You can have someone's personal copy on their hard drive destroyed even beyond stopping them from publishing it?

ben0x539

3 年前議論

Do you know that the neighbor didn't intentionally make their TV do that?

ben0x539

3 年前議論

I haven't really been keeping up, sorry.

ben0x539

3 年前議論

Yeah, I think that's very cool and reads nicely in a lot of cases. D is definitely always a language that comes to mind thinking about "has lots of important features" + "doesn't look crufty".

ben0x539

3 年前議論

That's wild actually, I've been aware that ML languages exist and had a rough idea what they look like but I never realized they do postfix generics. I'm going to have to let that bake in my brain.

ben0x539

3 年前議論

Like, all the syntax does something that contributes to being safe and fast, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a completely different notation for all of that. Maybe there is nothing that would make everybody happier, but for any given person unhappy with Rust syntax, there's probably a bunch of tweaks you could do to make it nicer for them.

For example, in

    pub fn read<P: AsRef<Path>>(path: P) -> io::Result<Vec<u8>> {

for me it's really unpleasant that there is so much stuff between the function name and the names of the parameters. It's a bit nicer with already-a-Rust-feature where-clauses like

    pub fn read<P>(path: P) -> io::Result<Vec<u8>> where P: AsRef<Path> {

but if nothing else I think that makes a mess of the indentation if you linebreak anywhere in that line.

C++ avoids this by just yanking all the extra bits at the very start of the declaration, so we could copy that (without going all the way into C++ caricature):

    for<P: AsRef<Path>>
    pub fn read(path: P) -> io::Result<Vec<u8>> {

This addresses my specific complaint, but is probably worse for other people. Who knows.

As another example, the whole business with explicit Result types and the early-return question mark is basically isomorphic to checked exceptions, which may or may not be syntactically lighter/more pleasant. Would Rust enthusiasts prefer that? Probably not. Would it make the language more approachable to people coming from some Java ecosystem? Maybe? Would it be worth it? No idea.

ben0x539

3 年前議論

I keep thinking Rust should allow you to skip the < > if there's only one generic argument. Like just say io::Result Vec u8. Much more lightweight and not ambiguous (but breaks macros people write). You can keep the angle brackets for multiple arguments like idk Vec HashMap<Option String, Result<i32, ()>>.

ben0x539

4 年前議論

Isn't this like the whole point of abstractions? Sure they don't last forever but still.

コメント