I remember listening to a podcast (possibly complex systems?) that said the best way to find what kinds of frauds are out there is by looking at what known fraudsters are up to.
To be honest I prefer this type of communication over the I-can't-believe-it's-not-layoffs that my previous employer was doing. At least it's honest that it is a decision they've made.
I ran in to a couple problems when trying that script (details below), but I'm really happy that you shared it, because I had not seen ':windo diffthis' before, and that method of scripting diffs. I'll definitely be customising it!
(I found that my mac machine doesn't support the '-printf' option, and also I was attempting to run 'git bvd main' on a branch but it seems it does a recursive directory diff, so I'll use 'git diff --name-only' as the input to the awk command).
Edit: worked nicely! I haven't used tabs much in vim so is a slightly new workflow but otherwise very handy
I've also found llms seem to love it when calling out to tools, I suppose for them having stderr interspersed messaged in their input doesn't make much difference
The level of engineering and problem solving needed for such a charming game just brightens my day. I remember the post about ssh keystroke obfuscation as well, and I really enjoy how limiting yourself to smaller systems forces you to solve problems that people don't usually see.
This is concerning, it feels a bit tragedy-of-the-commons I suppose where having public tests are a valuable public good, thought I can't quite get the analogy straight in my head.
> feels a bit tragedy-of-the-commons ... I can't quite get the analogy straight in my head
I have a personal theory that "tragedy of the commons" has a very specific meaning, and beyond this meaning it just adds confusion. This isn't your fault - it's an overused phrase.
I'd try to examine the root of your discomfort. Why does it make you feel bad? Avoid thinking about "big ideas" like the commons or the public good.
I've been thinking through what features I'd want in a language if I were designing one myself, and one of my desires is to have exhaustive matches on enums (which could be made of any primitive type) and sum types. The ability to generate perfect hashes at compile time was one of the things that falls out nicely from that
There's so many times where I realise what I thought was simple in C turns out to be a minefield. I'd assumed an enum was 'word' sized, so 64 bits on a 64 bit architecture, but instead it turns out to be unspecified, and left up to the compiler.
Thinking through the standards quote again, I'm not sure that MSVC's behaviour is even wrong (when not using C23 type specification)? Because it doesn't look like it's required that the underlying type has to be sufficient to represent the largest enum. So maybe it's not wrong, it's just ... broken.
This was really interesting. Man pages are at the same time really useful, while being arcane and frustrating to use. I still never remember is it 'man 1 read' or 'man 2 read' for libc vs the bash 'read' command (checking now 1 is the builtin, 2 is libc). Yes I know about 'man man', but it won't stick in my brain which is which.
They also lack discoverability, I just checked man 1 through 5 of 'open' and 'man 3 open' is a random perl pragma, which is not what I'd expect
[0] It might have been this one, but I can't find it in the transcript https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/fraud-as-infr...
reply