stifle867 @ stifle867 @programming.dev

Posts

2

Comments

439

Joined

2 yr. ago

Either that or a literal Excel spreadsheet.

Oh yeah it's undoubtedly an advancement but as you said, to fire someone over that is an overreaction and that's putting it generously.

I understand taking some form of action if there was evidence of something potentially catastrophic, or at least 1 step removed from that. Do they have public guidelines on where they draw the line? What's the procedure that says "at this point we pull the plug?". I highly doubt it says "when it can do basic math".

Especially once you've been found or pleaded guilty. If a person commits a crime of this magnitude and they go to jail, they would have probation upon release. Maybe there should be some kind of corporate probation policy? Not something up for negotiation.

The balance is kept at a bank and the banks have ledgers with the reserve bank who in turn adds $40B to the asset column and negates $40B from the liabilities column. That's the basic version. Nothing changes hands per se. It's just 1s and 0s on a computer.

Thanks for attempting to clear it up. I guess it's up to everyone's individual interpretation but to me, sometimes, the things someone doesn't say are just as important as the things they do say. These are the things you pay a PR agency to think about. I know that's reading a lot into it and again, I'm not saying that's enough to make a verdict. It's just the very slightest of evidence that would make me suspicious of someone.

Even considering that it's a blanket response, it's not a typical blanket response. Normally it's either a denial or a no comment. This comment leaves open the interpretation that he did do it, and he does know about it, just that it's the first time he's heard a complaint about it. It is an interpretation, not saying it's the correct interpretation. Just enough for a suspicion.

Like you, I've never heard anything about this guy before. I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other. All I'm saying is if someone accuses you of stealing from the cookie jar and the reply is "well this is the first time I'm hearing this come from you", it's at least an odd reply.

Appreciate you comprehending and replying in good faith. Open to any intellectual discussion about this.

No problem! I'll keep an eye on it and it appears there may be a manual method still available. It's something to evaluate at least along with some of the other comments here. It's something I gave up on a long time ago.

Interesting. I don't see any immediately obvious technical reasons why this wouldn't be possible.

There are languages that include a variety of different programming paradigms (I'm thinking of D). I can't think of any that support different syntaxes but I'm sure one would exist. However, a language that is configurable I feel does not exist and could be an interesting experiment.

I still do fear however, that any attempt would still not be practical as if you design a language feature that is generic enough to work with/without other features and with different syntaxes then it would not be specific enough to be clearly useful. In other words by trying to support everything it becomes good at nothing.

Ah yes I heard about that. I suppose it's up to the interpretation of "loading". Firefox still loads everything as fast, including the code where Google tells the browser to wait for 5 seconds. But the average user does not care about the technicalities of it. Only that they get a degraded experience on Firefox.

IMO that gives me even more reason to use Firefox. I'm not going to be bullies or deceived into giving in to corporate malfeasance.

Exactly. That's why I labelled it specifically as a suspicion and made a clear note it's not enough to say there was any wrongdoing. It's purely based on the "slight evidence" of his statement. We'll have to wait and see where this leads to but I'm commenting on the information we have now. Based on the information we have now, in my opinion, the response was suspicious. The suspicion comes from the lack of denial.

Haha yes, the Pentagon has probably "lost" more money than the totality of all fines.

It's just an idea I had, rather than directly spending out of a budget it would be a way to be self sustaining. If there is no wrongdoing then by its nature the funding would dry up and be self-cancelling. On the other hand it could generate further revenue if allowed to continue investigating.

I never said that they are automatically guilty or innocent. In fact I specifically avoided doing so. All I said was that I find it suspicious. A suspicion is not the same as a verdict. That's an intrinsic part of the justice system and also of my beliefs.

I'm starting to understand what you're saying. It wouldn't be a universal programming language because even those things you list are not universal.

So now I am imagining a system very roughly where you could say (for example):

    
language.add(Variables)
language.add(Functions)
language.add(Loops)
language.add(Strings)
language.add(BracketScope)
language.add(Regex)
language.add(ActorConcurrency)


  

You would add support for various features and maybe control the syntax via configuration? Is that more along the lines of what you are envisioning?

Why? I haven't reached any conclusions either way because I haven't heard the facts yet. I have an open mind towards all possibilities. Isn't that what you would be looking for on a jury?

The full quote doesn't make it any better IMO. The context you provide does provide some explanation, but an explanation to a response he didn't give.

If he had said something along the lines of "I have received this complaint and while there are not enough details to specifically respond I look forward to defending myself in court" that would have been another matter entirely.

The response he actually gave just sounds suspicious. There's not enough to claim any knowledge of wrongdoing but it also doesn't give off an air of confidence in his innocence.

You're essentially describing a turing machine. I don't mean to be facetious and I don't have proof for this but my gut tells me by the time you make something this generic it will no longer be a "universal programming language" and will become a specification to allow for anything while failing to provide anything actually useful.

Anything more specific and you're essentially implementing YACC or some form of code generation that's already been invented and is not specific enough to be useful for this purpose.

EDIT: In my mind it's like saying we have cars, boats, airplanes, bicycles, etc. Why isn't there a platform where if we wanted we could add wings and jet engines and make it into a plane? Or instead add a horse and carriage? Or 4 wheels and a steering wheel?

Maybe you could do so, but the result wouldn't be anything actually useful because making a plane has specific design goals that aren't shared with a bicycle.

Thank you! I'm in the same situation as OP and looking at the homebrew store it even includes apps for the other things I'm missing too! (CrunchyRoll and Jellyfin).

Do you happen to know if there's any way I can get ChromeCast like functionality from my TV? It's my last remaining little niggle with the TV.

EDIT: unfortunately LG has patched out the ability for rootmy.tv to work

Do you think you can get Firefox on an LG TV? I don't know of anyway this is possible.

The docs do imply this but I've had Jellyfin sideloaded via developer mode for a few weeks and I've never had to renew anything. It may have changed recently. This is on a C8.

The more generic you make something the worse it is at specific goals. The more use cases you support, the more complex and harder to maintain, the more it's likely to fail. There will never be a "universal" programming language.

Imagine if you had a programming language that did "everything". Well there are people who want a simple programming language. Don't these two things seem completely at odds?

They should use a portion of these funds to setup specific task forces to dig deeper into the company and provide oversight indefinitely. $4.3B is a lot of money, you could fund an agency forever and still have change.