If that is the case, that he was using a gun until it jammed, it makes more sense to me. At the same time, how often does an ordinary gun jam? I've used an HK416 and an MG3 during a year of army service (conscription training) and to my memory you could fire many hundred rounds (thousands in the case of the MG3) without a single jam, and a misfire takes about a second (max) to clear.
Also, I've seen people talking about the number of guns someone has also in other settings, as a kind of metric that people who are into guns seem to care about, I guess I'm more wondering about the phenomenon in general than just this specific case.
A lot of people this thing about reloading, but honestly, my reload time after a couple weeks of basic training was under the five seconds you need to pass, and after a couple months of service plenty of people were closer to three seconds. I have a hard time imagining that swapping weapons is quicker. I guess the reloading thing might be the reason to have many guns, but it strikes me as a strange one.
And really, I'm not only talking about this specific case, I get the feeling that people that are into guns will often focus on the number of guns someone has, also outside this case, which seems a bit of a strange metric to be talking about in general.
Can someone who's more into gun stuff tell me why people are always talking about the number of guns someone has?
What makes 23 different guns better than one good one? I can see the point of having like two, in case the first jams, but based on my (limited) experience I would much rather have a single HK416 than a dozen of anything else.
Also with fewer guns you need fewer ammo types (unless you for some reason have 23 guns with the same ammo, which to me makes even less sense).
For Python I think there's an actual point though: A lot of Python projects are user friendly wrappers for pre-compiled high-performance code. It makes sense to call something "py
I have to be honest: I dont see the problem of including the entire signature at the top of the doc, and the listing the params below. If I know the class/function, a quick look at the signature is often all I need, so I find it convenient that it's at the top of the doc. If it's a class/function I'm not familiar with, I just scroll to the bullet points.
I agree on the bit about whitespace in signatures though. Luckily Python allows me to use as many lines as I want within a parentheses.
Even in a well provisioned lab you're gonna have a hard time coming across large amounts of nitrogen rich compounds, exactly because they're crucial to making explosives.
in HTML is like pressing enter in word, but that doesn't make it a programming language, it makes it a markup language.
A markup language is also what you can use to format comments here: You use a specific syntax to indicate how you want things formatted.
The separation from a programming language is that a programming language can be used to implement logic, like saying: In the following paragraph, a word should be bold if it contains the letter "A". That cannot be done with a markup language.
A markup language (which is what HTML is) is like an advanced text container. When you write a post or comment here, you can use specific syntax to indicate the size of the text, a hyperlink, a quote, etc. HTML is that. It doesn't "do" anything, you're just writing in what you want it to display, and that is displayed.
A programming language lets you somehow "do" something. Instead of declaring explicitly "write this text in bold" a programming language can be used to process all the text in an arbitrary document, and change the word "aeroplane" to bold whenever it turns up. That is: The output from the code isn't just a rendering of what is explicitly written there, which is what a markup language gives you.
Theres plenty of cases where I would like to do some large calculation that can potentially give a NaN at many intermediate steps. I prefer to check for the NaN at the end of the calculation, rather than have a bunch of checks in every intermediate step.
How I handle the failed calculation is rarely dependent on which intermediate step gave a NaN.
This feels like people want to take away a tool that makes development in the engineering world a whole lot easier because "null bad", or because they can't see the use of multiplying 1e27 with 1e-30.
Stealing IP is victimless up to a point: At the point where companies that pay for innovation are out-competed by companies that just steal this innovations, everyone that wants technological progress is a victim. This is why I have an issue with companies like Huawei blatantly stealing IP. We wouldn't have the tech we rely on today if not for someone eating the cost of innovation, turning a profit, and seeing continued innovation as a viable business strategy.
Read up a bit on this now, and it definitely looks like something I want to try out! One of the beautiful thing about C is its simplicity, and it looks like Odin has been able to keep that, while introducing some nice convenience features that I often feel like I miss when writing C.
I'm missing the part where being suffocated while you are conscious is peaceful. It's true I don't know the exact procedure, but I don't need to know more than that it involves being forced to inhale nitrogen until death to imagine it is anything but peaceful...
To be fair, lethal injections also sound absolutely horrible (and for the record I agree fully that nobody should be executing anybody in the first place).
Still, to me it sounds so absolutely terrifying to be in a situation where I know that my next breath will be my last, and having nothing but willpower to stay alive for however long I can. It sounds quite similar to torturing someone while leaving them a gun so they can end it when they can't take anymore.
At least with other methods you aren't forced to pull the figurative trigger yourself.
To me it really just underlines how barbaric and inhumane these death penalties are...
In one situation: A person that wants to die chooses to do so.
In the other: A person that wants to live is tied down, with a mask over their face, possibly holding their breath until they can't take any more, knowing that they will die shortly after their next breath.
I can hold my breath for about two minutes, maybe more if it I knew it was my last breath. I don't know if I could make myself breathe if I knew it would kill me. That sounds like an absolutely terrifying way to go.
I think you're disregarding the fact that the idea that breathing will kill you, while you are tied down with a mask over your face, would likely lead to more than a couple terrifying moments of holding your breath and holding on to life for as long as you can.
Nitrogen asphyxiation as a suicide method is painless as far as we know, yes. But try holding your breath for as long as you can, and imagine you are tied down and will die shortly after your next breath... doesn't exactly sound quick or peaceful to me.
If that is the case, that he was using a gun until it jammed, it makes more sense to me. At the same time, how often does an ordinary gun jam? I've used an HK416 and an MG3 during a year of army service (conscription training) and to my memory you could fire many hundred rounds (thousands in the case of the MG3) without a single jam, and a misfire takes about a second (max) to clear.
Also, I've seen people talking about the number of guns someone has also in other settings, as a kind of metric that people who are into guns seem to care about, I guess I'm more wondering about the phenomenon in general than just this specific case.