ts4z
Volume was roughly similar (thousands to low tens of thousands of cabinets).
Things differed from game to game over time. My Missile Command had a silkscreened control panel, but I think they went to overlays which were more durable and could be replaced.
It's not just types, either. Look at the signature for the built-in sort, which is amazingly cumbersome to use. A generic wrapper around it hides all the ugly.
https://www.wired.com/2012/07/leap-second-glitch-explained/ https://developers.google.com/time/smear
Unfortunately, the owner retired and sold it off for parts.
Kind of funny that SASL is the most durable piece of the effort.
(I doubt this is entirely accurate. I wasn’t there for a lot of it.)
Folders (mailboxes in proper IMAP lingo) had hand-built indexes. Good stuff. Credit to jgm, the original author.
One big problem with a giant "Application" class is that it means all of the dependencies are laid out there, and their dependencies, and their dependencies, all named and instantiated. But some dependencies are in libraries, and basic detail encapsulation means ... a factory.
Offspring wasn't much of a framework, more of a set of conventions and utilities for building that stuff in plain Java code (with key annotations). In particular, I think the Offspring setup wasn't opinionated about the framework of the rest of the application, although other parts of LinkedIn were (and presumably still are).
LinkedIn replaced its uses of Spring with a thing called Offspring. Offspring explicitly disavowed being a dependency injection framework, but it did a similar job for us. I rather liked it. Notably, you just wrote Java with it. Invariably, in Offspring, you'd have to write a FooFactory to construct your Foo object to inject it into some (other class. By convention, all of the factories ended in Factory.
Well, I had a use case for a runtime class that needed to make a per-request factory to make little objects. So to make my Bars, I needed a BarFactory; and to construct the BarFactory, I needed an Offspring factory, thus BarFactoryFactory. There it was. I felt a little weird after that.
I suspect the EventFactoryFactoryFactory code here was such an Offspring factory being used for dependency injection, but I can't explain why it produced a FactoryFactory.
Weak flippers are probably not the result of weak coils, but of wear of flipper mechanisms. A complete flipper rebuild is hard to do on a budget. Some games (and BK is one of them) have flippers that haven’t worn well. (I think BK might still have 25V flippers, for instance.) But next time I’m there I will make sure to look. It’s important to be able to kick the ball upstairs on Black Knight.
I will say noise is always a problem, but the museum isn’t always crowded. I’ve been going a long time, and it’s been ten years since I could go early in the afternoon, but it is worth a shot.
Thanks for playing. Do mention any issues to the front desk. They will get attention, albeit triaged, and fixed on a budget.
But the value of time.Second is actually a Duration with value 1000000, IIRC -- it's microseconds. It's just the type that's special, and the int handling here is general over a lot of types.
It really is nice in practice.
Depending on Google for accessing your site is putting the cart before the horse.
Do you need a great domain name? Maybe not. 1998 was great for people overpaying for domain names. But books.com turned out not to be that important. Or toys.com. Or pets.com. On the other hand, you won't learn much about rainforests at Amazon.com, but you can buy books, toys, and cat litter there.
v := if foo() {
7
} else {
11
}
But this means {} blocks now have values, which is weird in a C derivative. Of course, one could do v := func() int {
if foo() {
return 7
} else {
return 11
}
}()
but... that's kind of awful.My team managed a system that did a read from user data, doing input validation. One day we got a smart quote character that happened to be > U+10000. But because the data validation happened in chunks, we only got half of it. Which was an invalid character, so input validation failed.
In UTF-8, partial characters happen so often, they're likely to get tested. In UTF-16, they are more rarely seen, so things work until someone pastes in emoji and then it falls apart.
top reports this as RES.
IIRC, debugging information is in a separate part of the process, so it's not loaded until it's used. Does that make it free? Probably not quite, but the kernel can ignore it until the process (presumably via its debugger) looks at it.
There are various features on the search functions on LinkedIn, and most recruiters know that nobody quits the job they just started.
You can't reduce the bytes in UTF-8 or UTF-16, because you'll scramble the encoding. But you could parsing the string, codepoint-at-a-time, handling the specifics of UTF-8, or UTF-16 with its surrogate pairs, and reversing those. This sounds equivalent to reversing UTF-32, and I believe is what the original poster was imagining.
Except you can't do that, because Unicode has composing characters. Now, I'm American and too stupid to type anything other than ASCII, but I know about n+~ = ñ. If you have the pre-composed version of ñ, you can reverse the codepoint (it's one codepoint). If you don't have it, and you have n+dead ~, you can't reverse it, or in the word "año" you might put the ~ on the "o". (Even crazier things happen when you get to the ligatures in Arabic; IIRC one of those is about 20 codepoints.)
So we can't just reverse codepoints, even ancient versions of Unicode. Other posters have talked about the even more exotic stuff like Emoji + skin tone. It's necessary to be very careful.
Now, the old fart in me says that ASCII never had this problem. But the old fart in me knows about CRLF in text protocols, and that's never LFCR; and that if you want to make a ñ in ASCII you must send n ^H ~. I guess you can reverse that, but if you want to do more exotic things it becomes less obvious.
(IIRC UCS-2 is the deadname, now we call it UTF-16 to remind us to always handle surrogate pairs correctly, which we don't.)
TLDR: Strings are hard.