I was once penalised for doing this in a leetcode problem given during an interview. I was told to rethink things about calculating a mid-point from first principles.
SQLite is one of the greatest pieces of software ever written, and D. Richard Hipp is a model, both professionally and personally, that other developers should emulate.
They've been talking about building a port for ages... Money is an issue. For now they want to keep some form of floating structure going, like the same we have (FIPASS), but less rust.
> I try to do those things that have a preponderance of evidence in favor of them. For example, smoking. I remember back in the ’80s that I was going to go interview [mathematician and hedge fund manager] Jim Simons to see if I wanted to add him to a fund of funds. And I never went to the interview because I learned that he smoked in meetings. I just didn’t want the exposure.
> It didn’t matter in the early ’80s, because he was losing money then. He didn’t really turn things around until about 1989 or so, when I was no longer looking for people. He’s a very smart guy, but I’m astonished that he would succumb to an addiction like that. By the way, that’s one of the risks that I try to avoid: the whole class of addictions. (Editor’s note: Bloomberg was unable to reach Simons for comment.)
Simons is the Renaissance Technologies guy, for those unaware.
Meanwhile, on reddit and even HN, you regularly see progressives hypocritically trotting out their beloved Paradox of Tolerance (or at least their paraphrased misconception of it) to justify everything from deplatforming upto and including actual violence ("punch nazis") against those with whom they disagree.
I always think the it interesting how the paradox of tolerance gets interpreted as a an instruction and endorsement of intolerance, opposed to an actual paradox.
It also takes as an assumption that intolerant ideas outcompete tolerant ones, opposed to reach some equilibrium solution or the opposite.
The simple interpretation is “be tolerant, but not to a fault”. Same idea as the Constitution not being a suicide pact, or being allowed to break kosher rules to save a life.
On reddit, hn, and internet in general the conservatives support modern totalitarian states like China, Russia or Iran much more often than progressives. Despite very real and very recent atrocities.
Civilization (and the social contract that sustains it) requires defense at times. D-Day serves as an example; we did substantially more than punching.
D-Day was done in response to violence (starting with the invasion Poland in 1939), not speech. Protection of political speech is the bedrock of American civilization.
It's funny, if you want to find the truly most loathsome of your fellow citizens, just browse your state's public sex offender registry. How many "punch nazi" types would endorse assaulting these people? Probably none, not even for the ones politically organizing and advocating for their "cause" (the "MAPS" types)--which is the correct attitude for a civilized society.
It's weird that you think there is a significant number of people who would punch a nazi or a tankie but not also punch a pedophile.
I've read a lot of pro fascist speech arguments on HN, but "we should treat them with the dignity and respect we afford child-fuckers" is definitely a new one on me.
> D-Day was necessary because Nazi storm troopers in the early 1930s weren’t opposed enough.
And Stalin's Great Terror of 1936-37 occurred because Communists weren't opposed enough. Yet conservatives don't go around calling for "Communists" (let alone as broadly constituted as the left casts their opponents as "nazis") to be assaulted, because they understand speech != violence.
> Pedophiles generally aren’t advocating
It's not hard to find pedophiles trying to rebrand themselves (e.g., "MAPS") and trying to advocate for decriminalization or reform.
> The ones on the registry have already been caught and punished, too. We have no such public registry of Nazis.
Probably because they haven't broken any laws--you know, the things a civilized society is supposed to use to punish its transgressors.
> Yet conservatives don't go around calling for "Communists" (let alone as broadly constituted as the left casts their opponents as "nazis") to be assaulted, because they understand speech != violence.
The former and future Republican president called for demonstrators to be shot, hecklers at his rallies to be beaten up, said "Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!" when Montana's governor assaulted a reporter...
A decent chunk of conservatives assaulted Congress when they didn't like the election results, and a lot more supported the action.
> It's not hard to find pedophiles trying to rebrand themselves (e.g., "MAPS") and trying to advocate for decriminalization or reform.
And if they make any significant inroads politically I'll happily add them to the punching list.
Indeed, although I think people "on the right side of history" (whoever they may be, fill in the blank yourself) would (could) do a bit better to ensure they use violence as a last resort. Never too late is crucial, but never too early is still important.
You have examples, like North Korea, which invaded its southern neighbor in an act of naked, unprovoked aggression five years after the peninsula was partitioned.
And the North's military so easily overwhelmed the South's that within two months, they were driven to brink of defeat, retaining only the Pusan Perimeter on the south-eastern tip of the peninsula.
> In Ruby 3.4, it has been added as a default name for the first parameter passed to a block. Rather than specifying a name in trivial cases like the one above, you can now write:
> [
> "beige chinos",
> "blue jorts",
> "rainbow jorts",
> ].filter { it =~ /jorts/ }
> # => ["blue jorts", "rainbow jorts"]
This reminds me of Perl's $_ (which in Ruby is last line read from STDIN).
