magic_lobster_party @ magic_lobster_party @fedia.io

Posts

0

Comments

419

Joined

11 mo. ago

It’s not like it’s going to consume electricity like Bitcoin.

PoW was first conceptualized as an anti spam method. It’s just a little overhead to make it expensive to make DOS attacks. This makes perfect sense.

For me it’s the opposite. No money no deal.

There’s also that 4chan anon who made significant contribution to a math problem in order to find the best way to watch an anime

Let me guess, the coins can only be bought in bundles. The bundles are deliberately made so that no matter how you spend the coins, you’ll always have 1 or 2 coins left. Which makes you encouraged to buy another bundle to make all your moneys worth.

In case you’re wondering about the down votes, many think Clean Code is not a good book. It got a few good advice, but it also got bad advice disguised as good advice.

I don’t think switch statements should always be avoided. There are cases where polymorphism makes things more difficult to maintain. Saying polymorphism should be used over switch statements is not a good advice.

Here’s an article going into more detail why we should stop recommending Clean Code: https://qntm.org/clean

For me I have the habit of doing findFirst because determinism is important where I work. But I agree with you if determinism is not of importance.

Looks like it’s JavaScript, but in Java I would prefer to use the Stream API, something like this:

 java

    
return availableDrivers.stream()
    .filter(driver -> calculateDistance(rider, driver) < 5)
    .filter(driver -> isPreferredVehicle(rider, driver))
    .filter(driver -> meetsRiderPreferences(rider, driver))
    .findFirst()
    .orElse(null);

  

Then we have:

 java 

    
private boolean meetsRiderPreferences(Rider rider, Driver driver) {
    if (driver.rating >= 4.5) {
        if (rider.preferences.includes('Premium Driver')) {
              return driver.isPremiumDriver;
        } else {
              return true;
        }
    } else if (driver.rating >= 4.0) {
        return true;
    } else {
        return false;
    }
}

  

This increases the separation of concern in a neat way, and it becomes more clear what the for loop does at a glance (get the first driver satisfying a set of conditions). The more complicated logic is isolated in meetsRiderPreferences, which now only returns true or false. Reading the method is more about making a mental map of a truth table.

It’s also easy to expand the logic (add more filter conditions, sort the drivers based on rating and distance, break out meetsRiderPreferences into smaller methods, etc.).

Not sure how the equivalent in JavaScript would look like, but this is what I would do in Java.

There’s C++/CLI if you want to combine garbage collection with the pain of C++

My body is Water Temple:

• Pain
• Pain
• Pain

Anyone using “woke” in their criticism can be disregarded. They don’t have any valuable insights of why the media they criticize is bad.

Link to the original artist because her art is amazing: https://www.lilyseikajones.com/

I relate. Technical debt is by far the most common source of frustration in my career. It’s that code someone inexperienced wrote years ago that no one longer understands, but it still needs to be maintained. Often the code is also unnecessarily convoluted, so there’s a high risk of introducing new bugs when working with it.

I’ve recently managed to refactor such code recently. No one could work with it with confidence, it was slow and it was buggy. A lot of the code was also completely unnecessary (like 100 line convoluted mess that could be done with 1 line of code).

Now someone else in my team who has never worked with this code wrote a major addition to it without much assistance, so I take it as a sign that my refactor is a great improvement.

I haven’t played Plucky yet, but this is what I liked about Tunic. It gives you a hint, and then trusts the player to experiment with the hint they’re given. It makes it feel like your own adventure.

https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/66538/how-do-i-draw-a-pair-of-buttocks

What’s happening is that support from VC money is drying up. Tech companies have for a long time survived on the promise that they will eventually be much more profitable in the future. It doesn’t matter if it’s not profitable today. They will be in the future.

Now we’re in a period where there’s more pressure on tech companies to be profitable today. That’s why they’re going for such anti consumer behaviors. They want to make more with less.

I’m not sure if there’s a bubble bursting. It could just be a plateau.

Drawing hands is hard

Isn’t problem solving mostly put things together of what you’ve learned before?

I didn’t read everything, but I mostly agree with the author, especially on this point:

While you can definitely abuse exceptions, functional-style error values are not a one-size-fits-all solution.

There are time and place for both. I think exceptions are good for bigger errors. Like database connection errors. Things that shouldn’t happen without any easy backup plan. Those errors might need to be escalated as high as possible where proper action can be made (like resetting the database connection and everything relying on it).

Functional style is great for smaller stuff. Like key not found in hash maps. In many cases there might be good defaults that can be used instead.

It’s a concept of a plan