Why not 64 minutes and 64 seconds for the hexadecimal in the base 16 clock? The second duration would be closer to the real life one (1.3 seconds) and 64 is closer to 60 too
I had no idea what I was looking at until I read the hacker news comments, what I was thinking it was was AI-hallucinated images of a combination of the Backrooms and the Metaverse
I don't know any since I'm not playing any golf simulator games myself, but most games on Steam work in Linux with Proton so you might find something there. That's not open source of course but you had it in parenthesis which I think means this was optional :)
I'd love the robot to fill and empty the dishwasher and put the stuff in the correct drawers and cabinets
edit: but if the robot could in addition also do dishes in the sink and not need a dishwasher at all, that'd also save up space in the kitchen for something else
On what datatype though, e.g. for sorting arbitrary length strings? I think that is if the comparator is expensive, quicksort and variants do not win because they do a constant factor more comparisons
> He did not enter a plea and was released on a $2.25 million bond
I'm not familiar with the US system of bond. Is this payment a kind of fine that you don't get back, or a temporary payment? And what does it give you? I mean if prosecuted you get prison anyway, right?
That one is an approximation rather than returning all millions of exact big integer digits though (the approximation is more useful for real life statistics etc..., but doesn't look like what this article is targeting)
I'd actually rather just have the compiler give some guarantees on producing SIMD code when you write regular C++ code doing sums, multiplications, etc... in a particular way. And perhaps add a few more operators/keywords to the language for modern CPU instructions (we got things like popcount, countl_zero and fma, but what about e.g. pext, pdep, aes, ...)
But this is not valuable if doing so results in different numerical results, and I think that will always happen if ++ is executed at different times, there's no point in a compiler optimizing pointless code that can silently give different results elsewhere
What's the reason that C didn't define the order of this?
The horrible undefined behavior of signed integer overflow at least can be explained by the fact that multiple CPU architectures handling those differently existed (though the fact that C even 'attracts' its ill-defined signed integers when you're using unsigned ones by returning a signed int when left shifting an uint16_t by an uint16_t for example is not as forgivable imho)
But this here is something that could be completely defined at the language level, there's nothing CPU dependent here, they could have simply stated in the language specification that e.g. the order of execution of statements is from left to right (and/or other rules like post increment happens after the full statement is finished for example, my point is not whether the rule I type here is complete enough or not but that the language designers could have made it completely defined).