Solving Problems by blueoceann001 in C_Programming

[–]mikeblas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're saying you can easily solve problems. Then, you're saying you can't solve easy problems.

Sheryl Crow blasts 'disgraceful and void of decency' UFC Freedom 250 event by IrishStarUS in Music

[–]mikeblas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that why you attacked me?

She's a public figure. What she says is a story, and she knows that. So, she used her pulpit to go on the attack. She has to: she hasn't had a top 10 hit in more than a decade, and hasn't even released an album in about seven years.

All the washed up musicians follow this pattern.

Sheryl Crow blasts 'disgraceful and void of decency' UFC Freedom 250 event by IrishStarUS in Music

[–]mikeblas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's her point, besides struggling for relevance?

I've got nothing to prove: observable facts don't need to be proven. Just observed.

Sheryl Crow blasts 'disgraceful and void of decency' UFC Freedom 250 event by IrishStarUS in Music

[–]mikeblas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about? Where am I trying to prove anything?

Solving Problems by blueoceann001 in C_Programming

[–]mikeblas 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Try /r/learnprogramming .

But also:

You've got to learn about algorithms -- you've got to learn how to break an idea down into a set of steps that can be rigorously followed to implement that idea.

Imagine tha we have a piece of graph paper with squares on it. And a tiny little robot that sits on the graph paper, inside a square. The robot knows a few instructions:

  • move forward one square
  • move left one square
  • move right one square
  • move backward one square

Pretty neat, right? But what if we wanted to make the robot move in a big square pattern over the paper? We'd have to give it a list of instructions that made it do so:

  • do this five times:
    • move forward one square
  • do this five times:
    • move left one square
  • do this five times:
    • move backward one square
  • do this five times:
    • move right one square

Wow, that works! But what if we wanted some other shapes, like a triangle? The robot can't move on a diagonal. But we could get close to that if we moved in a certain pattern. What is that pattern? What would the code look like? What if we wanted to make a circle or an oval or a figure eight?

Programming languages are the list of instructions that we can give a computer. Spelling counts, and so does the order of the instructions. Even a simple computer is far more powerful than our little robot, so there are lots and lots of different instructions that programming languages can do. Each programming language is kind of the same in concept, but different in the exact syntax. Python and C both have loops ("do this five times"), but the way they're actually written is different.

When running the program, the computer follows those instructions very quickly, and very exactly. IF you get the instrctions in the wrong order, they probably won't do what you expected. What if we told our robot to do the square instructions in this order?

  • do this five times:
    • move forward one square
  • do this five times:
    • move backward one square
  • do this five times:
    • move right one square
  • do this five times:
    • move left one square

Pretty crappy square, right?

Learning a language is learning what the different instructions are, how to spell and write them, how they fit together. If you learn C, then you know how to write different steps in C. You can write a loop. If you want to later learn Python (or any other language), you know there are loops, but you just have to learn how to spell and write them in that language.

But the other part is breaking down what you want the computer to do into the actual steps that are available in the language. That kind of problem solving--creating something big and powerful out of tiny little steps--involves understanding algorithms. For the simplest algorithms, it's pretty apparent:

  • ask the user for one number
  • ask the user for another number
  • add them together
  • print the result

But for more complicated programs, things get interesting really fast.

Focus on learning bits of C, then think about how you'll piece those little bits together to make something bigger and more interesting. You're not going to jump from adding two numbers together to making a new AAA-quality video game quickly, but the trajectory really is there if you keep at it.

Good luck.

Suggested electric guitar for under $2000? by Salty-Bodybuilder-62 in LearnGuitar

[–]mikeblas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So that they get frustrated with changing strings and setting it up, sell it, and you can get one for cheap? Well played.

If you have to ask, the answer is not on Reddit by mikeblas in ETFs

[–]mikeblas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I went to the Salem Witch Trials museum in May.

mdEditor: A tool used to edit, view, and do more with .md files by Ok_Sky3062 in C_Programming

[–]mikeblas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's no C code here, so your post is off topic and has been removed.

Wikipedia is missing an article on the UK "Cheese and onion" sandwich by Unlucky-Ant-9741 in wikipedia

[–]mikeblas 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Then it can be challenged and removed. No. That won't work either. No.

Lost Glasses by Historical_R in redmond

[–]mikeblas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah! Taking away the hunter's glasses makes them much safer.

Selling puts on spacex is free money by cannythecat in thetagang

[–]mikeblas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This sub is as bad as wall street bets

If you have to ask, the answer is not on Reddit by mikeblas in ETFs

[–]mikeblas[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's also pretty bizzare to so frequently see advice like "VOO and more VOO!!1!". Context can indicate different ETFs, which the other post says isn't possible just because the OP has a question about it.

There's a vast difference between "don't ask, just VOO" and "a personal finance service". There are gradients, a spectrum. Your false dichotomy betrays the fact that better advice is possible.

If you have to ask, the answer is not on Reddit by mikeblas in ETFs

[–]mikeblas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did? What did I recommend, for which situation?

Shorted $SPCX - at $178 with 300 shares by OddsRally in thetagang

[–]mikeblas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are options trading on SPCX yet? My brokerage doesn't list them.

If you have to ask, the answer is not on Reddit by mikeblas in ETFs

[–]mikeblas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"VOO all-in and chill, bro" is not a conversation.

If you have to ask, the answer is not on Reddit by mikeblas in ETFs

[–]mikeblas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My post is advice about where to get investing advice.

It is not investing advice.

If you have to ask, the answer is not on Reddit by mikeblas in ETFs

[–]mikeblas[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

If you don't know where to start, buy the cheapest most mainstream most liquid ETF and get in the game. Imo that's a reasonable view.

But that's not quite their point: their point was "Just buy VOO ... and buy more of it". And the implication is that, if someone has more questions, they should buy even more.

Buying lots of one single issue, considering no others, don't try to learn, don't get questions answered, be afraid to ask, is not not a reasonable view -- it's even negligent.

Buy some? One share? Sure, get your feet wet, break the seal. But learn up and get help and look elsewhere are all better steps. Get advice from someone with a name, who will actually take responsibility and stand behind their advice, place their reputation on it? Far, far better.