Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mkehrt's comments login

I've just gone from season one to season two in an X-Files rewatch and the sudden appearance of cell phones is shocking.

I write rust professionally and really like it, but I do think that its noisy syntax is a flaw. I'm not sure how I would clean this up, but it really can be inscrutable sometimes.

You should be able to read a function from top to bottom and it should show you the whole procedure at a given level of abstraction. Hiding the details is the heart of what programming is.

I always try to write code like

fn foo() {

    let foo = do_first_thing();

    let bar = do_second_thing();

    do_third_thing(foo, bar);
}

whenever possible. Then you can see the abstract overview of what the code does at a glance, but you can drill down into the details if you need to.


Yeah, the replies here are all nuts. Linus is acting like a child. It's completely inappropriate of him to treat anyone like this.


Roman dodecahedra predate knitting by almost a thousand years. The earliest known knitting was from the 11th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knitting#History_and_culture), while the earliest dodecahedra are from the 2nd century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron#History)


Meanwhile, elsewhere on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knitting

>Earlier pieces having a knitted or crocheted appearance have been shown to be made with other techniques, such as Nålebinding, a technique of making fabric by creating multiple loops with a single needle and thread, much like sewing.[4] Some artefacts have a structure so similar to knitting, for example, 3rd-5th century CE Romano-Egyptian toe-socks, that it is thought the "Coptic stitch" of nalbinding is the forerunner to knitting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nålebinding

The lack of signs of wear is a bigger problem for this hypothesis IMHO


To doubt that knitting existed in Roman Times is preposterous. Thats like saying they could not weave baskets. Instead your incredible hypothesis lends credence to recent studies by internet sleuths that indicate history as we are taught may have an extra 1000 years added simply because dates have been mistranslated or misconstrued to read a 1 (one) where there is indeed an I or J symbol, denoting years since the Christ; IOW that that 1999 is actually J999.


Knitting is from the Neolithic. The Chinese were already knitting silk about 3000 years ago.


This is a theory that keeps coming up on the internet. However, roman dodecahedra predate knitting by almost a thousand years. The earliest known knitting was from the 11th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knitting#History_and_culture), while the earliest dodecahedra are from the 2nd century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron#History)


yarn rots


To doubt that knitting existed in Roman Times is preposterous. Thats like saying they could not weave baskets. Instead, your incredible hypothesis lends credence to recent studies by internet sleuths that indicate history as we are taught may have an extra 1000 years added simply because dates have been mistranslated or misconstrued to read a 1 (one) where there is indeed an I or J symbol, denoting years since the Christ; IOW that that 1999 is actually J999.


I don't know if the location services permission is initially on in Apple Maps, but I just checked to see if you can turn it off, and you definitely can, without affecting other apps' ability to use it.


To be clear on terminology--this isn't "Modern" architecture; it's "contemporary". Modern refers to a very specific set of movements. The demolished brutalist building the OP mentions is an offshoot of Modern. The replacement is not.


Common definition of the term "modern" is "relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past.".

I'd rather call architectural styles from 100 years ago "modernist" to avoid confusion.


As someone who is a midelevel vimmer and has been using it for 20 years, that's probably true. But the muscle memory is there, and it's standard everywhere. I do get a lot of leverage out of macros and text objects, features which I'm sure have equivalents in IDEs and other editors, but I know how to use them in vim.


I don't think there are IDEs which are as scriptable as (neo)vim or emacs. Am I wrong?


Oh, I have no idea. I assume that they must have some features, but I really only use vim and vscode with vim bindings turned on.


So, uh, why's it named after a demon?



Ah, that makes sense. All the Google hits in English are a demon or a World of Warcraft enemy. Obviously I should have been looking in Catalan!


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: