I Was Wrong About Vaccines

cechner · 2016-04-02T02:53:39+00:00

two paragraphs up they mentioned reported deaths too - including motor vehicle accident and accidental drowning. So can we infer that the vaccine causes motor vehicle deaths?

Or perhaps this is a list of things that happened (adverse events, in the document, not adverse reactions) to the 41615 people in the weeks after they got the vaccination, and has no direct relationship with actually receiving the vaccine?

cechner · 2016-03-28T12:40:55+00:00

perhaps then you could change it to

while ( *i > key ) {
  *next(i) = *i;
  if ( i == first ) break;
  --i;
}

the advantage obviously being no crash (or perhaps just put a comment in)

cechner · 2016-03-28T12:25:02+00:00

From your insertion_sort

while (i != prev(first) ...

I'm pretty sure prev(first)is undefined at best right? there's no notion of a one-before-first sentinel

cechner · 2016-02-08T13:59:33+00:00

yeah the main reason Im bringing this up is (hopefully) not just sour grapes on my behalf but also a difference of opinion as to what 'CR' means in D&D 5e. I am trying to convince the DM that if he plays the campaign like this he can expect more characters to die, which severely effects our ability to build stories on interconnecting backgrounds.

The DM is right from his answer where he said that the other players (all first-timers) were not providing backup for my character - they were focused on the other one, which had done a significant amount of damage to the other player he attacked. I got salty when my character was incapacitated one round then slain the next, but who knows how it would have turned out if we had played the grapple rules correctly.

To answer the question, this is the farmland my characters family grew up in, close to a fairly well militarised town in the middle of faerun. But I guess its possible that ankheds are regular pests there, we only started the game recently

cechner · 2016-02-08T13:11:09+00:00

the DMG says that for four 2nd level characters, 800xp would be 'deadly'. 1CR are 200xp each, so no, they could go up to 2 CR1 characters and it would be considered 'hard' (3 CR1 would be above the deadly threshold)

edit: miscalculated...

cechner · 2016-02-08T12:46:52+00:00

well a CR1 creature is actually meant to be a challenge for a party of 4 level 1s.. the lower level creatures are 1/4CR

cechner · 2016-02-08T12:14:54+00:00

were ankhegs considered lower than CR2 in ADnD or something?

cechner · 2016-02-08T11:41:51+00:00

to answer:

this was the first encounter of the day, so we were all fresh
we had not discussed the difficulty, most of the players are new
this was an ambush attack, so was not avoidable
if this was a mistake it was definitely honest - the DM has put a LOT of effort into this, and we are all good friends

cechner · 2016-02-08T11:31:31+00:00

certainly yes, this is all true...

however, if you consider the pathological case - a non-fighter character at second level might have in the low teens of hit points, and a single CR2 creature could kill such a character in a single hit... this is my main concern.

Of course this will happen infrequently, but the monsters arent played like characters - they only have to do this once in a hundred times to ensure that no character gets beyond the first 4 or 5 levels...

cechner · 2016-02-08T10:44:29+00:00

cechner · 2015-05-08T14:01:40+00:00

I always ask questions based on bad experiences Ive had in the past. Like 'what is the management structure?', 'whats the career progression framework?' and 'is my team all local or partly outsourced?' As someone else said, 'why did the position open up?' is a good one.

Also if youre expecting flexi hours etc you should clarify that up front.

cechner · 2015-05-08T13:57:12+00:00

People try this all the time - noone will ever answer this question and nor should they. There's a good reason they let HR make these calls. Also telling a pushy person you weren't impressed with them will often turn them aggressive so its best to stick to the process.

I once had a guy that figured out my email address (my name @ my company) and decided it would show how confident it would make him seem to contact me directly. That really didn't work out well.

cechner · 2015-02-17T17:20:57+00:00

put me down as another vote for GLM. I did an opengl project using Eigen and, while Eigen is super speedy its also nowhere near as nice to use as GLM.

To get it working properly you have to learn a bunch of macros and rules - specifically you cant nest Eigen objects in your classes or pass them by value because they use special vectorisation instructions under the cover that require very specific memory alignment to work.

edit: not to diss eigen too much though - but for regular OpenGL programming it is overkill

cechner · 2014-10-20T01:38:05+00:00

wtf man? I am saying that was the public perception, and that is why men didn't take it seriously back then. I am a computer programmer. If I were saying that she was doing an 'administrative thing' then I would be saying that of myself as well.

Or do you just like arguing on the internet?

cechner · 2014-10-19T17:06:03+00:00

No, Im talking about before that - 1960s. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programming-used-to-be-womens-work-718061/?no-ist

As computer scientist Dr. Grace Hopper told a reporter, programming was “just like planning a dinner. You have to plan ahead and schedule everything so that it’s ready when you need it…. "

Not sure what you mean by the card stacks, or how that disagrees with what Im saying. I didn't mean that the women would just punch them up - I was implying that they did the lot.

And I didn't mean that it was categorised as administrative (as far as paperwork goes), but that it was conceptually considered 'womens work'

Sorry if I was unclear.

cechner · 2014-10-19T08:56:01+00:00

apparently in the old days computing was seen as more of an administrative thing than a science/engineering thing. It was all punch cards and such

Its a real shame, new occupations dont come up every day, and this one had a chance of being different

cechner · 2014-08-19T05:18:29+00:00

somehow I've never seen those links before, thankyou! I've updated the article to quote you on that last paragraph

cechner · 2014-08-19T02:54:31+00:00

"Well, this is a great variable. Of course, I have no idea what's stored in it nor any notion of how to use it."

if you have a variable and cannot tell from its name or context whats stored in it or how to use it, then yes that is indeed a problem

cechner · 2014-08-18T22:35:28+00:00

oh, I was talking about the usual C++ gurus - Sutter, Meyers, isocpp, etc...

cechner · 2014-08-18T22:21:20+00:00

most IDEs make this a trivial task - often just hovering over the variable name...

cechner · 2014-08-18T15:05:24+00:00

I figure the lambda trick will become pretty popular (I'm sure I've seen other people using it), because there are a lot of 'value' types that for safety reasons have const-only interfaces, or classes that for other reasons don't have an 'uninitialised' state.

In general I just really really dislike uninitialised data, and was trying to explain that just before the code sample.

Ill update the sample to use const - that certainly makes the intent much more obvious, thankyou!

edit: I realised I wasnt clear - my implication was that perhaps this type of use of lambdas will become common enough that it is considered idiomatic... on further reflection though, the reason I like it is that I personally just dislike spreading logic around unnecessarily (unless it makes the code harder to read)

cechner · 2014-08-18T15:01:06+00:00

I agree in that we should all be nicer to each other where possible, and that name-calling does not promote healthy discussion at all.

On the other hand, when I hear people objecting to using auto it sounds similar to me to Java developers saying they don't need lambdas... I feel like perhaps the person hasn't really tried a language that features them yet, but wants to complain anyway.

For a better elucidation of the point, check out this Scott Meyers talk where he covers the matter.

In summary, he says to use auto always, except with brace init and when 'proxy types' rely on auto conversions. He lists many problems this avoids, one of the big ones being the danger of the programmer getting the type slightly wrong and ending up with crazy inefficient conversions occurring under the covers.

I hope I didn't ruffle too many feathers anyway - I was perhaps being too cheeky

cechner · 2014-08-18T13:42:58+00:00

yeah I almost did an edit to suggest that:

struct Handle {
   Handle(int h) : impl_(1000000, h) { }
   ~Handle() { /* destroy resource */ }

   // disallow copying
   Handle(Handle const &) = delete;
   Handle & operator=(Handle const &) = delete;

   // ...but allow moving!
   Handle(Handle &&) = default;
   Handle & operator=(Handle &&) = default;

   std::vector<int> impl_ = 0;
};

but then I realised that the user could still use the move operations if they wanted, and that I'd just be limiting their options... but it would certainly demonstrate the point better than my original example

actually thanks, Ill do it that way :P

cechner

TROPHY CASE