jongraehl

7 ms·

1.
by jongraehl 8y ago
'You probably don't have a choice ...' is a reach. The rest is well-argued. Anyway the most telling point is if OP gets his wish, then next time a bunch of people burn to death the public will clamor again for mandatory fire
2.
by jongraehl 10y ago
"progress" You think progress should be achieved by changing the interpretation of existing law? Odd view.
3.
by jongraehl 11y ago
splitting the lane for a right turn is common in CA (assume legal too). but you'd best be sure you can make it without having to cut someone off. if a human did this the result might be the same. tough problem. there's a chance th
4.
by jongraehl 11y ago
For regular contributors, women appear* to accept a man's work (slightly) more than they will a woman's, and men appear to accept a woman's work more than they will a man's. Since there are more men than women, this mean
5.
by jongraehl 11y ago
if we think some pattern should be called "censorship", then it is called that. if your interlocutor refuses to move beyond "argument about definition of words" and you still want to communicate, you then have to taboo t
6.
by jongraehl 11y ago
Every one of his complaints has a good solution, albeit some not widely known. Except compile time, single source file or otherwise - the compiler is using lots of smarts and lots of library headers on your behalf. That said, author has don
7.
by jongraehl 11y ago
clang-format is better
8.
by jongraehl 11y ago
I prefer mandatory static types + type inference. It is a productivity boost if you're allowed to skip entering type names for local vars. If you ever want to change anything meaningful in a large system, you better have meaningful c
9.
by jongraehl 11y ago
Get tolerant or get wrecked sounds great until you look at the details (especially the asymmetric-nuclear-etc ones). Still, well said (not sure on "we need differences" - that's conveniently kumbaya; I'll settle for &quo
10.
by jongraehl 11y ago
I like your line of thought, but this is no refutation of IIFYM or "eat less if you're fat" unless they performed this substitution isocalorically. Eating fast sugars instead of equivalent slow starches makes me crave more
11.
by jongraehl 11y ago
Unsurprisingly, your version-2 story is as close as possible to version-1 and the demonstrated proof of version-1's lies. This is why it's nice to hold in reserve some additional evidence when you expose a liar - so you can catch
12.
by jongraehl 11y ago
Public shaming is an appropriate reaction to demonstrable theft of credit, and works by like mechanisms as the original offense. The threat of being exposed for building a fake reputation can preserve the (relative) reliability of "jud
13.
by jongraehl 11y ago
Really clear writing. Sweet story.
14.
by jongraehl 11y ago
I'm not a fan of "protected category" hiring rules in any case. If good old people are underpaid, then let your company profit by hiring them. I suppose a tempting compromise is to not allow companies to solicit disclosure of
15.
by jongraehl 11y ago
In my company, it seems we are (slightly) biased toward female programmer/researcher candidates (that is, a female will get hired more eagerly, all else equal).
16.
by jongraehl 11y ago
Sure, new-tech drones should respond to a targeted ping w/ serial number or similar. Simple challenge/response crypto could avoid cloning/spoofing. Enforcement of registration: no response = police will follow the drone to it
17.
by jongraehl 11y ago
https://www.google.com/patents/US5781752
18.
by jongraehl 11y ago
($862M is a maximum to be decided in the next phase of the jury trial; in the final phase the damages will be tripled if the infringement is judged willful). Case is Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc; Apple claimed the paten
19.
Apple infringed UWisconsin power-saving patent; damages up to $862M(reuters.com)
1 points by jongraehl 11y ago|2 comments
20.
by jongraehl 11y ago
Nice characterizations but the conclusion was only empty "human face" platitudes for me. I'll take the reminder that we should believe in the end result we're accomplishing and not only obsess about making the tools we&#
21.
by jongraehl 11y ago
My read: math teaching @Berkeley is in fact horrible and this offended him. He was happy to shame the incumbents and refuse to submit to mediocrity. Naturally he'd prefer to keep his job and reform by example, but his compensation for
22.
by jongraehl 11y ago
Police slapping phones/cameras out of someone's hands need to get control of their emotions and bear the "I will catch you slipping up" threat with confident professionalism. That said, the criminal-record stereo-blaster
23.
by jongraehl 11y ago
"Mrs. degree" assortative mating (+ field of study preferences) make the 'females in college X' implication muddier, but overall it's good to encourage people to look at expected outcomes before opting into $100k de
24.
by jongraehl 11y ago
You also have to trust the source code of the 'untrusted' compiler (that is, read it and make sure it doesn't directly contain any back door).
25.
by jongraehl 11y ago
"As a rising [University student / whatever]," - have people really started saying this? "Rising" as a self-descriptor sounds ridiculous. I feel like this is at least the second time I've seen that opener.
26.
by jongraehl 11y ago
That problem has nothing to do with linear algebra. I like it! Presumably the submatrix size is limited, or there are negative numbers. Personally I'd precompute the submatrix sums S[r,c] for row 1...r and col 1...c in r*c steps, which
27.
by jongraehl 11y ago
To build: install flex and ctags, and -Wno-error=unused-but-set-variable
28.
by jongraehl 11y ago
Right. Article text says so too.
29.
by jongraehl 11y ago
I like particle filtering because it's easy to understand and implement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_localization - and it's correct even for non-gaussian uncertainty. Is Kalman filtering compu
30.
by jongraehl 11y ago
for 64 bit size_t it's pretty academic, but no, not correct. suppose low is M-3 and high is M-1 (where M is 2^[#bits]) then mid should be M-2. but (M-3 + M-1) is (modulo M) equal to M-4. and half that is M/2 - 2, which is a lot le

More ›