Sandman
Does Speaking to Agents Like Cavemen Save 65% of Tokens? We Test
Beyond the Prompt: Claude Code
AGI won't automate most jobs–because they're not worth the trouble
European Commission cloud breach: a supply-chain compromise
Longplayer
Learn Electronics by Practice
Print an Arduino-Powered Color Mechanical Television
Ideas from 2021
BlueTeam CheatSheet Log4Shell
GameStop Frenzy Reaches Biden and Powell as Hedge Funds Squeezed
I merely wanted to point out that, in my opinion, this property should be reflected in parameter type, rather than the name. Just like, if we wanted a parameter that should only be a whole number, we wouldn't declare it as a float and name it "MyVariableInteger" and hope that the callers would only send integers.
You mentioned that there are quite a few languages that do not permit what I proposed, would you mind specifying which ones exactly? The only one that comes to my mind is assembly?
EDIT: Some of you asked what about languages that don't support such more constrained types, so to answer all of you here: different languages have different capabilities, of course, so while some may make what I proposed trivial, in others it would be almost or literally impossible. However, I believe most of the more popular languages support creation of custom data types? So the idea (for those languages at least) is quite simple - hold the value as a float, but wrap it in a custom data type that makes sure the value stays within bounds through accessor methods.
Why not? Your chances of choosing the correct door were 1 in 3 from the start. That doesn't change with the fact that the host opens the doors at random.
C++ creator hates that Bitcoin was written in the language he made
The Arrogance of the Anthropocene
You're right, I don't. But, if Americans don't need to fear that they'll have to fight the US Army, why have the 2nd amendment at all? Who would they need to protect themselves against?
Basically, yes. Do you honestly think people would have any chance against probably the most powerful army in the world? Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis.
> Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure?
Would they even consider it their own infrastructure? Or would they consider it infrastructure currently held by rebels, which needs to be either seized or destroyed?
> Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families?
I suspect a lot of them would destroy towns if they we're told that these are now enemy bases. This has been repeated in many parts of the world throughout the history, even recent one. If they wouldn't, they'd be defectors and it really wouldn't matter whether the war was fought with modern weapons or sticks and stones.
Learning the Hard Way: Microservices
"Great master" he said "You are wise and know many things. But tell me this: What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
The master slapped him.
At that moment, the student attained enlightenment.