mseepgood
mseepgood on Hacker News
"May well be added at some point" it said and added they were at some point.
It's not good Go code anyway. In Go you would use a for loop. Just because Go has generics nowadays doesn't mean you should abandon good taste and write ML/Haskell/Rust/C# in it.
Isn't that just how one falls asleep? I've been doing this every evening for decades.
Of all the messages they could have sent they chose the most boring.
He's probably dead by now.
> 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.
This text lacks information about why it is being sunset.
A third that will never have a wife.
> 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.
With a statically compiled language it is usually culled through dead-code elimination (DCE), and with static linking you don’t ship entire libraries.
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.
Our railways don't need sabotage - trains fail to run anyway.
So why do people still design declarative languages?
> 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)
You're looking at the wrong production. They are octal literals:
octal_lit = "0" [ "o" | "O" ] [ "_" ] octal_digits .
The values for x and y should't come from your brain, though (with the exception of 0). They should come from previous index operations like s.indexOf(...) or s.search(regex), etc.
So he only did four hours of actual work per day.
Is it some kind of CORBA?
You don't even have to write proper sentences. "me get error X how fix here code:" usually works.
Is asking good questions or making clear requests what people now refer to as 'prompt engineering'?
The second most popular issue was adding generics. So it's probably not a resistance to change.
It's good to have languages with different approaches to design and and with different design philosophies.
- It has poor visibility, it hides control flow branches in a single statement / expression. That's one of the reasons Go got rid of the ternary operator in favor of an if statement where each branch has to be on its own line.
- It isn't easily breakpointable.
- It favors "bubbling up" as-is over enriching or handling.
One reason I consider Rust's approach worse than Go's.
How would you set a breakpoint on the error return case?
Sometimes doing nothing is the right thing to do. (Quote from Until Dawn)
Go chose not to change the error handling - Nature remained in balance.
Or the 2006 London incident, where a Putin critic was irradiated by a radioactive source in his stomach.
They were composed by Ennio Moricons.