asdkjh345fd

5 ms·

1.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
Well, since I don't know what guideline I broke, and you refuse to tell me, I guess the obvious answer is no.
2.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
https://www.thewholesomedish.com/the-best-homemade-tacos/
3.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
The data used to compile HadCRUT4.
4.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
That is what everyone means when they say "run out of oil". Read it as "run out of oil worth extracting". We're obviously not going to spend 2 TJ of energy to extract oil that contains 1 TJ of energy.
5.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
The parent poster didn't complain about anything, he pointed out the flaw in the grandparent poster's claim.
6.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
No, facebook doesn't. The good programmers facebook hires don't work on the legacy PHP code. They do stuff like sigma. Also, I am not describing a problem, I am pointing out that their perceived problem doesn't exist. If
7.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
>And last, people compare it to languages like Rust or Go since they consider those are "innovative" No, they do not. The entire appeal of go is that there is zero innovation at all. It is the most plain, boring, ordinary lan
8.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
Some people simply have reasonable standards. I tried for years to hire a PHP dev. I never found a single one. I found tons of people who had PHP on their resume, and not a single one of them was anything close to competent. PHP only ma
9.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
I spent 17 years going through that. I can't say I recovered my optimism, but I stopped being cynical and am now realistic (which people tend to think is pessimistic), but without it being negative. Get off the drugs, move into the c
10.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
>can't we simply compare the populations that consume a lot of omega-3 ( fish primarily ) vs those who don't? That's how we came up with the hypothesis in the first place. But that's all such a study can do, give us
11.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
Have you considered reading it?
12.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
In this case it doesn't matter, because the tracks are long since abandoned and there are no trains coming. Once the UN updates their "facts" to reflect the actual facts and no longer promotes climate hysteria, will you stop
13.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
There is no such thing as imperative syntax. Syntax is completely orthogonal to being imperative, which is semantic not syntactic. It isn't "almost C-like syntax", unless you define that to mean "if I do any amount of s
14.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
We currently have massive unemployment, and low quality, toxic food. I think rather than giving everyone a "basic income" to purchase that inferior food, we should give them jobs producing better food, and the overall increased p
15.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
I don't think it is harsh enough. The comment is devoid of substance and wrong.
16.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
Right, the entire world is wrong because you can't admit a fault in a random piece of software you are emotionally invested in. Makes sense.
17.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
Farmers haven't been hard working in decades. There's a reason most farmers are obese, sitting isn't hard work. Even when I was a kid everyone around here still did square bales of hay and tossed them around by hand. Now i
18.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
It would just shift more to healthier meat like beef instead of so much chicken. Beef production requires no large tractors, seeders, harvesters, etc. You are just letting cows eat grass. Chicken production is basically an extra step in
19.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
I think that is actually a very harmful myth that huge multinational corporations want to keep in people's minds. We produce less food per acre with modern industrial farming, not more. They optimize for total cost, not for land use.
20.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
Read the rest of the discussion.
21.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
Yes, the type is very interesting to know. That's why other languages make it known. Ignoring the entire discussion to reply twice with "nu uh!" is not very productive.
22.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
If something is unclear, you can ask for clarification. I repeated the statement to three people because three people repeated the same argument to me. This is how conversations work. I have very limited exposure to haskell, am not detac
23.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
>But the name of that type depends on the type of the range and on the callable. That should not be a problem. It is a problem in D because of a lacking in D. >How would you suggest improving the signature of map given that D doesn&#
24.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
It gives us much more information than "something". It tells us it is a list of the type of the second argument to the function we passed it. Or in the generic version a "something you can iterate over" of things of th
25.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
>It takes an input range Which should have a type. >and returns a type that iterates through that range Which should have a type. The entire point is that this is a solved problem, there is no excuse to simply throw up our hands and
26.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
Read the transcript. He did not. And a reporter specifically asked for clarification, and got it. There was absolutely no confusion, this is deliberate misrepresentation by "journalists" who value clickbait over truth.
27.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
So? They still have a type, it doesn't have to be "screw you figure it out yourself". Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
28.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
Of course not. But it still has a type. Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
29.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
>With highly generic functions, it's often not possible to know what they'll return without knowing what you'll call them with. Of course it is. Map's type is "(a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]". D just abso
30.
by asdkjh345fd 6y ago
I didn't suggest it was pejorative, and I know what it is. There are not two school of thought, that's a false dichotomy. That is like saying "there are two schools of thought, catholic and protestant". You can want t

More ›