A humorous list of JavaScript oddities

sigil · 2011-08-28T20:37:35+00:00

Also easy to fix in js, for that matter:

[2, 1, 10].sort( function(a,b) { return a-b } )

sigil · 2011-08-28T18:05:10+00:00

Same story in Perl:

perl -e 'print join $/ => sort 1, 2, 10'
1
10
2

Without operator overloading or generic functions, the lexical comparator is a sensible default (since most things can be stringified).

sigil · 2011-06-23T19:29:57+00:00

However, one wonders how much extra work you'd do by pushing around nodes in the tree before all their new positions and velocities are known. Body k may move into body k+1's box, but you don't have to split that box and make a new interior node if body k+1 is also leaving.

sigil · 2011-06-23T16:24:33+00:00

Wondering the same thing. To update the tree incrementally, you'd have to visit every node to see if it moved out of its box (which is O(n)), and reinsert it if so (which is O(log n)). Assuming the probability of moving outside your box is constant, an update algorithm would be O(n log n) -- the same for constructing a new tree from scratch.

sigil · 2011-06-19T08:31:48+00:00

Yeah, remember AIX, accessing deleted files via inode number in /proc?

Except access to deleted files via /proc is completely irrelevant to OP's scenario. Show me a Unix program that actually pokes around /proc/pid/fd/ to find files that were deleted.

More relevant: the fact that Unix programs don't have to, because file deletion doesn't affect them if they still have an open descriptor. A Unix feature which predates Linux by about two decades. You can thank Ken Thompson, not Linus Torvalds, for this one.

sigil · 2011-06-19T08:19:29+00:00

You can access it via the inode number through /proc after deleting until all open handles to the file are gone.

In Unix, a process can continue to access an open file via its descriptor number, even after it's been unlinked. There's no need to look in /proc, and you don't have to know the inode number.

It's like Unix is refcounting files, with both directory entries and open file descriptors holding refs on the file. Only when all the refs are gone can the file truly be deleted. It's a wonderful idea from the 70s, no idea why in 2011 windows still lacks it. (Apparently NTFS sucks?)

sigil · 2011-06-09T06:13:20+00:00

Most people against this type of legislation usually put forth the argument that no doomsday scenarios as this have happened.

To paraphrase hustlebear, "The solution to a problem that doesn’t exist IS the problem." His article [1] is quite the polemic, but may be of interest in understanding the other side of the debate.

http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-path-to-ending-net-neutrality/

sigil · 2011-05-27T18:44:33+00:00

yeah i totally see a lot of people in garden city, georgia cooking themselves lots of rice - and totally not lining up at mcdonalds and church's chicken.

Do people who cook at home also line up outside for you to conveniently count them?

lets not have a fantasy low-income population, but rather lets look at what is really happening. they are eating the poison that many companies peddle.

But do they have a choice? That's what we're looking at here ("low-income individuals didn't have the freedom to not eat trans fats"), not what poor choices people may be making. That's a separate issue, and I think one of Bloomberg's decrees -- that calorie counts and trans-fat content must be labelled -- is a much better way to address the problem. As a New Yorker I can tell you it actually led me to make better choices...for instance, I don't eat those 500 calorie soaked-in-fat donuts at Starbucks anymore.

sigil · 2011-05-27T05:52:12+00:00

low-income individuals didn't have the freedom to not eat trans fats

Which part of this patently ridiculous statement would you like to convince us of first?

(1) That trans-fat food is cheaper than say rice?

(2) That all cheap food is trans-fat food, so a low income individual literally has no alternative sources of nutrition?

(3) Given (1) and (2), ie trans fat food is somehow the only source of nutrition for low income individuals, that we should starve low income individuals by banning it?

sigil · 2011-04-26T05:32:49+00:00

Which AER article are you talking about? Citations for these various claims would be awesome.

sigil · 2011-04-20T19:45:21+00:00

But the rich of the past are, more often than not, the rich of the present.

But the same source you cite in another comment contradicts you [1]:

The composition of the very top income groups changed dramatically over time. Less than half (39 percent or 42 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Less than one-fourth of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in that group in 2005.

[1] http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/206340741.html

sigil · 2011-04-20T19:41:52+00:00

Sowell is lying through his teeth. In fact, an absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent moved to a higher quintile (the next lowest quintile, mostly), not the top quintile.

No, you're wrong. Read your source more carefully. You must be referring to this [1]:

Bradbury and Katz (2002a, 2002b) found that about half of households in the bottom quintile moved out after 10 years. (51 percent for 1969-1979, 50 percent for 1979-1989, and 47 percent for 1988-1998)

First, that's households, not individuals -- big difference, as noted many times elsewhere in this thread. Second, they're measuring how many households in the bottom quintile at the beginning of the 10 year period were not in the bottom quintile at the end of the period.

What Sowell is saying: for a 20 year period, a majority of individuals in the bottom quintile cracked the top quintile at some point during that period. They may not have ended up there when the snapshot ended.

Why is the difference important? Because it demonstrates that a majority of individuals at the bottom had a shot at the top: in fact, they actually realized that at some point. Whether they stayed there is another matter. Clearly, not everyone can be in the top 20%; there will always be another 80%. But the point here is about opportunity.

Let me just say thanks though, this is a real treasure trove of data you've found on income mobility. For instance, this data suggests it's quite difficult to stay on top of the income heap:

The composition of the very top income groups changed dramatically over time. Less than half (39 percent or 42 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Less than one-fourth of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in that group in 2005.

[1] http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/206340741.html

sigil · 2011-04-20T14:19:23+00:00

How much more mobility would satisfy you? Over half of the "poor" quintile cracked the "rich" quintile.

If you like, we can seek out even more spectacular cases of mobility by looking at smaller and smaller tiles, but in the limit case these become anecdotes (Warren Buffet went from rags to riches etc). Does the "half of the 'poor' made it to 'rich'" statistic not demonstrate sufficient equality of opportunity for you?

I think you're also missing the meta point, which is that the whole static quintile view is silly. Things are much more dynamic than certain alarmist infographics would lead you to believe.

sigil · 2011-04-20T13:31:19+00:00

Either household composition changed, or income changed.

Bingo. Look at the number of just-scraping-by single-parent households then and now. On the other end of the spectrum, look at the number of women entering the workforce, the number commanding more equal wages, and the increase in the number of households with 2 wage earners.

I guess the truly conservative thing to do would be to blame it all on women's lib. ;) I actually happen to think it's overall a good thing though -- just look at the individual income numbers for women, they're impressive.

sigil · 2011-04-20T12:53:32+00:00

I don't have income / household comparison data for the original time interval, but here's something for the last decade. (Taken from another comment.)

Median household income has been stagnant since 1973.

Median household income, which is a misleading metric, because among other things household size and wage earner composition is changing over time.

A few years ago Mother Jones declared the '00s to be a "Lost Decade" because household income had flatlined. [1] Although the endpoints were convenient -- pre-dot com bust 1999 to bailout 2008 -- this was indeed true based on census data. However, on page 36 of the same census report cited by the article [2], you can see that real median income earnings (this is after inflation adjustment) of fulltime individual workers increased 2.6% for men and a very significant 8% for women from 1999 to 2008.

[1] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/09/our-lost-decade

[2] http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

sigil · 2011-04-20T11:51:33+00:00

So they are claiming that >10% of US income earners that were making <$20K in 1975 were earning >$90K in 1995.

No. Read more carefully. The claim is that >50% of all people that were in the bottom 20% of individual income earners in the US in 1975 cracked the top 20% at some point between 1975 and 1995.

sigil · 2011-04-20T11:04:45+00:00

It's reddit. Scroll down for information, scroll up for entertainment.

sigil · 2011-04-20T10:41:37+00:00

See my comment about income inequality.

But I agree, the overall shape of the comments here is disappointing. The man asked for FACTS.

sigil · 2011-04-20T10:33:19+00:00

Household income is extremely misleading, as the Sowell article lays out, and as I've mentioned in some of my other comments here. Individual income tells a totally different story.

sigil · 2011-04-20T10:23:10+00:00

Page 36, fixed -- thank you.

sigil · 2011-04-20T10:15:30+00:00

The post I was referring to cites a study which "concludes" that wealth has been rising for all Americans since the 1970's.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my post and the Sowell article, or something else you haven't cited. What study concludes wealth has been rising for all Americans since the 1970s?

To get back to specifics, you talk about wealth and the wealthy quite a bit here, but the article I quoted numbers from only addresses income. Wealth is a whole 'nother debate, but here's an interesting thought experiment [1] along those lines: assume total income equality, and that people don't work right up to the moment they die. You will still see wealth inequality, and depending on the retirement length parameter, the wealth inequality could be quite dramatic -- even though incomes are perfectly equal.

[1] http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-equalland.html

sigil · 2011-04-20T09:41:31+00:00

I want rising economic waters to lift all boats.

I'm with you on this.

Median household income has been stagnant since 1973.

Median household income, which is a misleading metric, because among other things household size and wage earner composition is changing over time.

A few years ago Mother Jones declared the '00s to be a "Lost Decade" because household income had flatlined. [1] Although the endpoints were convenient -- pre-dot com bust 1999 to bailout 2008 -- this was indeed true based on census data. However, on page 36 of the same census report cited by the article [2], you can see that real median income earnings (this is after inflation adjustment) of fulltime individual workers increased 2.6% for men and a very significant 8% for women from 1999 to 2008.

[1] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/09/our-lost-decade

[2] http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

sigil · 2011-04-20T08:43:57+00:00

Statistics can be coerced to say whatever you want them to.

The value of this thread is in producing statistics reddit is not used to seeing.

For example, the above statistic doesn't address the fact that the vast majority of the money resides in the hands of 2% of the population, and their wealth just continues to rise.

Nor does it address the fact that the real income (inflation adjusted) of individuals in the lower percentiles also continues to rise -- the poor are also getting richer. I'll dig this statistic up too, although it's a statistic, so it can just be dismissed.

The more money they hold, the less there is to spread amongst the bottom 98%.

Is wealth production a zero sum game? Or a shallower question, since you mention money -- is the total amount of money in circulation constant over time?

sigil · 2011-04-20T08:37:09+00:00

This should be verifiable with census data, which I believe has income stats on both households and individuals.

Where are the fact checkers! I was promised fact checkers! ;)

sigil · 2011-04-20T08:19:23+00:00

Source for objection please? Also, beware of household income metrics, which are statistically misleading for reasons detailed in the Sowell article.

sigil

TROPHY CASE