iAvicenna @ iAvicenna @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,126

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yea I just finished the chapter before going to BG, having a blast

and here I am replaying BGI

this screenshot looks more like the beginning of something else. I wonder where they trained their AI model on hmm...

no conflict of interest, none at all

It is not "assume" as in a conscious "this is probably a bool I will assume so" but more like a slip of attention by someone who is more used to the bool context of not. Is "not integer" or "not list" really that commonly used that it is even comparable to its usage in bool context?

If there is an alternative through which I can achieve the same intended effect and is a bit more safer (because it will verify that it has len implemented) I would prefer that to commenting. Also if I have to comment every len use of not that sounds quite redundant as len checks are very common

I feel like that only serves the purpose up to the point that methods are not over reaching otherwise then it turns into remembering what a method does for a bunch of unrelated objects.

If you think just because a party is named labour things are guaranteed to get fixed it is wishful thinking and you are in for a disappointment. I will vote for labour anytime over any conservative government but these problems are systematic and four years of labour government and some new taxes will not fix those. And a criticism of a system that has been broken for more than a decade with multiple labour governments in charge in the same period is not a criticism of the current government. And people like you who think that labour governments or democrat parties cannot be criticised because the alternative is much more horrible are the ones lacking discussion maturity and rationality and the reason why better alternatives cannot get a foothold. If you think current labour is a perfect government then it is you who should get over yourself.

One year is old wow? If you are 20 years old maybe but otherwise it means you have spent like 10+ years navigating the problems of this system and getting frustrated at every turn. One year of improvement does not undo all those years of hardships. I have had friends going back to their own countries for treatments because of these waiting times and sometimes because their problem was not taken seriously, my wife being one of them, a close friend of mine another. Calling a fair criticism of a system that has been horrible for the last two decades of someone's attempt to "achieve something" and "spreading misinformation" sounds directly from the fascist's handbook.

well even if you are taken seriously there is a very high chance you will be hit by waiting times still

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/08/cancer-patients-england-deadly-delays

in most places you will first need to consult an intermediary person (like a GP or family doctor) who will tell you to wait and observe for a while anyways. it is not like you go to the hospital and they immediately test you. you need to bleed out of your anus for quite a while before they take you seriously...

to be honest more common reason could be polyps though so dont go crazy the first time you see blood on your stool.

I don't know, it throws me off but perhaps because I always use len in this context. Is there any generally applicable practical reason why one would prefer "not" over len? Is it just compactness and being pythonic?

isn't the expected behaviour exactly identical on any object that has len defined:

"By default, an object is considered true unless its class defines either a bool() method that returns False or a len() method that returns zero, when called with the object."

ps: well your objection is I guess that we cant know in advance if that said object has len defined such as being a collection so this question does not really apply to your post I guess.

Well fair enough but I still like the fact that len makes the aim and the object more transparent on a quick look through the code which is what I am trying to get at. The supporting argument on bools wasn't't very to the point I agree.

That being said is there an application of "not" on other classes which cannot be replaced by some other more transparent operator (I confess I only know the bool and length context)? I would rather have transparently named operators rather than having to remember what "not" does on ten different types. I like duck typing as much as the next person, but when it is so opaque (name-wise) as in the case of "not", I prefer alternatives.

For instance having open or read on different objects which does really read or open some data vs not some object god knows what it does I should memorise each case.

If anything len tells you that it is a sequence or a collection, "not" does not tell you that. That I feel like is the main point of my objection.

well it does not imply directly per se since you can "not" many things but I feel like my first assumption would be it is used in a bool context

Yea and then you use "not" with a variable name that does not make it obvious that it is a list and another person who reads the code thinks it is a bool. Hell a couple of months later you yourself wont even understand that it is a list. Moreover "not" will not throw an error if you don't use an sequence/collection there as you should but len will.

You should not sacrifice code readability and safety for over optimization, this is phyton after all I don't think list lengths will be your bottle neck.

since at least 10 years by now

in other words "we already know the result we will just back it by crafted science"