perdunov

> I didn't miss C++, it just seems a worse alternative than C.

This is such a retarded opinion. A person expressing it probably doesn't know shit about C++ or just plainly an idiot.

Would be nice to see a comparison with std::unordered_map<>, both on the performance and usability side.

It seems that people are so intimidated by the infamous complexity of C++ that they don't even want to bother getting more familiar with it.

So, although technically the existence of C doesn't make sense, as it is superseded by C++ (except couple of things), C is winning in the branding department.

The title needs rephrasing, but I wouldn't expect someone to say that we're almost there with AI, as it would sound ridiculous, so I used my natural intelligence to correct the meaning of the title and understood it as the author had intended.

Having no time limit is actually more stressful than to have a reasonable time limit. No time limit is basically "as fast as you can".

A certificate given by the domain registrar makes a lot of sense to me. My registrar holds my data and indeed can certify the identity of the domain.

I wish they shipped their superb kernel as a separate product allowing third-party shells, as their UI design division has gone off the rails.

Actually, I think there should be a law for making OS kernels replaceable and separate from UI shells. I have to use Windows as certain software and drivers are not available/performant enough under Linux, so I have to deal with the crazy Windows 8.1 UX.

It's almost surreal to see that one of the douchiest companies around is so radically transforming.

Do you mean the games that push your hardware to the edge, like DOOM and Quake I-III at the time?

I think it's quite easy to build a GC-like system for a particular subsystem of the engine.

The only nuisance is the lack of reflection in C++, as usual.

Pointers can be easily mapped from and into integer indices or file offsets in-place, so there is no big difference really.

I think it is generally not a good idea when in-memory representation of objects is identical to the serialized representation. This approach tends to backfire in a number of ways, such as format incompatibility between software versions, or hardware architecture differences, so it is always better to assume that your serialized representation will be different from in-memory representation.

Understood.

This type of comments are frowned upon on HN, as they add nothing to the discussion and create noise. So don't make such comments anymore.

You're exactly right. I'd go even further and say that the piece is quite superficial and the tone of it reminds of some holy book filled with commonplace morals.

That would be horrible for normal developers.

People would use it all the time, and then complain that the app doesn't work.

The actual problem is the "all or nothing" security model that needs to be replaced with contextual permissions (like "This app wants to access your photos right now. Allow?", see iOS).

The "all or nothing" model defeats its own purpose by effectively leaving no choice for the user.

My takeaway from being both an interviewee and an interviewer is that the most correct attitude after a failed job interview is "We don't match each other".

The interviewer is testing their own ability to properly conduct a job interview as much as they're testing the candidate. I realized it when I was interviewing candidates myself.

Also, people and companies are drastically, surprisingly and ridiculously different. You may fail badly at one interview, and it means nothing, you can just move on to the next company and prosper.

My guitar has superb UX. Are you suggesting it's tracking me? (Oh my!)

> so is using Apache access logs.

This kind of might be. Ideally, anonymous is supposed to mean collecting no data at all.

Ghostery found one tracker (PiwikAnalytics) that PrivacyBadger didn't on the PrivacyBadger page itself.

He was right, but in the wrong model of society.

This is the kind of mistake a founder should always watch out for. Like, keep repeating to oneself: people are not like you, people are not like you.

It's neither (in modern terms).

A cover letter should address a specific vacancy and explain the relevancy of the candidate to this particular job at this company.

It's too hard of a question. Of course, this is just an intuition. No formal proof or calculation implied.

Because it's incredibly improbable that we are alone given how much stuff there is in the Universe (something about 10^23 stars) and how prevalent are the chemicals we consist of.

Every man carves in history an everlasting description of what he has carved in history

I am totally writing a resume based on this.

The concentration of inside-the-box thinking and bullshit science in this is unbearable, I think it gave me cancer.

So was this actually written for April Fools' Day?

arXiv:1504.00680v1 [cs.SI] 2 Apr 2015

> a giant huge monster that eat puppies

Not puppies, but brains of the poor programmer who is confronted with a problem of building your bloatware on a non-supported platform (typically Windows).

You're probably downvoted because of the multiple mentions of C++. If you'd mentioned Haskell, you would be upvoted.

Haven't really read a book in 10 years. Terminal ADHD.