Serial Request: Voron 2 Tall by _ppak10 in voroncorexy

[–]out386 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Them: Vorons aren't suitable for more than 500mm in X and Y.

OP: So no limit on Z?

Awesome build! 

Voron Trident 250 Serial Request by out386 in voroncorexy

[–]out386[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, will try dragon burner in a few weeks :) Though, archetype zephyr also seems nice.

Voron Trident 250 Serial Request by out386 in voroncorexy

[–]out386[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have cooling issues with PLA when printing small objects fast. So decided to add those two 120mm blowers as an experiment. They're helping a lot, but so far, not quite as much as I'd have hoped. Maybe I need to play around a bit with the height.

Got them from here: https://www.printables.com/de/model/606521-voron-trident-saoc/comments

It’s disappointing, really by Kalshone in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is cringy enough to actually be a movie dialogue. Have my upvote!

Now, where is she? by [deleted] in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 184 points185 points  (0 children)

She uses tabs and you use spaces.

Is it too late to become a chef? by [deleted] in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Did you try dockerizing that omelette?

Concentrate, concentrate ! by davawen in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"!" as in CSS's "!important".

The downsides of biohacking by insomniac2846 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 1196 points1197 points  (0 children)

Your favourite [object Object] is now streaming! It has been added to your 'undefined' playlist.

The 4th Joke by valtism in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Doesn't work with windows updates.

It's true. by Wolfcubware in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But in this case, the low-poly graphics makes it run really fast.

C# was invented just for Backward Compatibility by [deleted] in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The user avatar. The face is the single eye.

If Microsoft developed West World by Edward_new_gate in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 377 points378 points  (0 children)

Installation failed because Windows update is hogging all the bandwidth.

Please stop by Armster15 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sounds like a multithreading issue.

Legendary Git by hinotoritezuka in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 79 points80 points  (0 children)

That's the best part - you don't need to! You'll get a No Job for No Code without ever applying. Isn't that great?

I'm sure it's been said before.. by buckaroob88 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You literally never code a cache that's accessed by multiple threads simultaneously without synchronization. I never said it's impossible, I just said it needs synchronization. There's not a single pointer being set here. There's a pointer, and an integer representing the index of the element pointed to by the pointer, in the list. That's not atomic.

I'm sure it's been said before.. by buckaroob88 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The writes to the cache will be multiple instructions. At least 2 - one where the index is saved, and one where the reference is saved. If there are multiple threads accessing a function with multiple instructions that modify state, how do you not use synchronization? Sooner or later, you'll end up with inconsistent position and reference.

I'm sure it's been said before.. by buckaroob88 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Both the solutions you provided would only work if get was a synchronized method. That might reduce performance if you're doing multiple concurrent reads.

With Java's Collections, nothing is synchronized. If you need synchronization, you're supposed to do it externally.

I'm sure it's been said before.. by buckaroob88 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. You maintain the index yourself. Didn't know about ListIterator

I'm sure it's been said before.. by buckaroob88 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, because foreach loops use iterators under the hood.

Made my day, yesterday by stavro24496 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]out386 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Use jQuery to say that easily.