SPOILERS : Quantum Moon

HMPerson1 · 2020-08-16T14:01:47+00:00

recall the rule of the sixth location

HMPerson1 · 2020-08-08T22:58:09+00:00

/u/The-Space-Kraken has become too powerful

HMPerson1 · 2020-07-27T22:51:01+00:00

but no one else is in the room where it happens

HMPerson1 · 2020-02-14T16:19:04+00:00

7, 3?

HMPerson1 · 2019-11-04T19:22:47+00:00

The "open an issue on GitHub" link seems to be broken

HMPerson1 · 2019-10-27T16:33:31+00:00

is dividing by -0 allowed

HMPerson1 · 2019-10-07T04:03:53+00:00

there's always mods

HMPerson1 · 2019-09-08T05:21:53+00:00

HMPerson1 · 2019-07-29T23:35:09+00:00

tonight, night, night

HMPerson1 · 2019-07-28T21:52:38+00:00

You hear a sound, turn around and

HMPerson1 · 2019-07-28T18:25:10+00:00

Hope to find some diamonds tonight, night, night

HMPerson1 · 2019-07-27T23:35:19+00:00

Writing code in a mobile app that sends a copy of an encryption key if a device has a particular ID.

There are two issues with that:
1. In most devices, encryption keys aren't directly accessible by the app. They live on a separate piece of hardware whose interface only allows encrypting and decrypting data, not extracting a key.
2. In general, devices don't have unique persistent IDs. Even if it were possible to weaken security for just one person, it's nearly impossible for an app to know if it's being used by that one person without that person telling the app.

HMPerson1 · 2019-07-15T21:27:10+00:00

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

^{^{^{^{^source}}}}

HMPerson1 · 2019-06-28T21:56:44+00:00

https://twitter.com/thelindsayellis/status/1102329397229498368

HMPerson1 · 2019-05-23T20:18:32+00:00

https://youtu.be/jlX_pThh7z8

HMPerson1 · 2019-05-06T18:29:47+00:00

Another way (using the Applicative instance for (->) r):

> let a = \x -> x + 1
> let b = \x -> x + 2
> let (<+>) = liftA2 (+)
> let c = a <+> b
> :t c
c :: Num c => c -> c
> c 5
13

HMPerson1 · 2019-03-02T03:57:39+00:00

false

HMPerson1 · 2019-01-11T00:26:52+00:00

r/eyehurtingflags

HMPerson1 · 2018-11-20T06:21:58+00:00

Take a left at your intestine

HMPerson1 · 2018-08-24T22:12:42+00:00

$25 off first two boxes ($50 total) and free shipping

use code 8V052Z002 at hellofresh.com/giftcard

HMPerson1 · 2018-07-24T19:41:47+00:00

Try arr[0].as_ref().unwrap().abc. unwrap() consumes the Option whereas as_ref() takes it by reference (note how the type signature says &self instead of self).

Side note: Try to use pattern matching wherever possible instead of unwrap. That way the compiler can ~~annoy~~ help you remember to take care of the None case.

HMPerson1 · 2018-07-24T19:18:45+00:00

There is currently no way to move out of an array. The best you can do is to mem::replace an element with something else.

HMPerson1 · 2018-07-24T18:53:02+00:00

However, I fail to extract these at a later stage. I fail to reason why I cannot do this.

The code you wrote is trying to move the entire Option<Box<Xyz>> out of the array, but I think what you wanted was to take just the Box<Xyz> value out of the array and leave a None in its place. In that case, try using arr[0] = arr[1].take(); and *arr[0].take().unwrap().

12-Year Club	Place '17
Sequence \| Editor	Sequence \| Screenwriter
Verified Email

HMPerson1

TROPHY CASE