HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

mseepgood

no profile record

コメント

mseepgood
·21 日前·議論
Of all the messages they could have sent they chose the most boring.
mseepgood
·2 か月前·議論
He's probably dead by now.
mseepgood
·2 か月前·議論
> It seems to me that humans often fall into the trap of anthropomorphism.

That's true, but they also often fall into the trap of exceptionalism.
mseepgood
·4 か月前·議論
This text lacks information about why it is being sunset.
mseepgood
·4 か月前·議論
A third that will never have a wife.
mseepgood
·5 か月前·議論
> We would immediately build better telescopes to track it precisely, refine its trajectory models, and begin developing propulsion systems capable of interception

That's not what would happen. We wouldn't mobilize. We'd fragment. Within days, the prediction would be declared partisan. One bloc would call it settled science; another would call it statistical hysteria. Billionaires would quietly commission private shelters while publicly funding studies questioning whether the asteroid even qualified as "large." News panels would debate whether the projected impact zone was being unfairly politicized. Conspiracy channels would insist the asteroid was fabricated to justify global governance. Others would insist the real asteroid was being hidden. Amateur analysts would flood the internet with homemade trajectory charts proving the professionals wrong. Death threats would arrive in astronomers' inboxes faster than research grants.
mseepgood
·5 か月前·議論
With a statically compiled language it is usually culled through dead-code elimination (DCE), and with static linking you don’t ship entire libraries.
mseepgood
·5 か月前·議論
The question is how many decades each user of your software would have to use it in order to offset, through the optimisation it provides, the energy consumption you burned through with LLMs.
mseepgood
·5 か月前·議論
Our railways don't need sabotage - trains fail to run anyway.
mseepgood
·7 か月前·議論
So why do people still design declarative languages?
mseepgood
·8 か月前·議論
> Octals must start with zero and then o/O literals.

No, the o/O is optional (hence in square brackets), only the leading zero is required. All of these are valid octal literals in Go:

0600 (zero six zero zero)

0_600 (zero underscore six zero zero)

0o600 (zero lower-case-letter-o six zero zero)

0O600 (zero upper-case-letter-o six zero zero)
mseepgood
·8 か月前·議論
You're looking at the wrong production. They are octal literals:

    octal_lit      = "0" [ "o" | "O" ] [ "_" ] octal_digits .
mseepgood
·昨年·議論
It is not a mark of quality, quite the opposite.
mseepgood
·昨年·議論
No, good language designers take care that their type system is not Turing complete.
mseepgood
·3 年前·議論
Thanks for the translation. Now that I understand what what the commenter said, I agree.
mseepgood
·3 年前·議論
> Java has an obviously better type system

How does Java have a better type system? Java's generics are unsound, while Go's generics are sound. Java's generics do type erasure, while Go does not. Java's type system is not unified, it does not have a top type (an int is not an Object, int vs. Integer etc.).
mseepgood
·5 年前·議論
You mean Minecraft?