moomin 2 days ago | link | parent | on: Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Trusty Tahr) Released Could someone please provide the lazy with a link to how to remove all of the spyware if you're upgrading from the last LTS?reply
 moomin 13 days ago | link | parent | on: Game of Thrones: why hasn’t Westeros had an indust... Another unique fictional aspect of the Game of Thrones world is that they have a well-documented and well-understood technology (magic) that just plain stopped working. Even things that you'd regard as chemistry e.g. wildfire stopped working when the dragons died. So you're looking at an environment in which normal scientific investigation might be unreliable.For that matter, if you've got dragons, who needs cannons?reply
 moomin 43 days ago | link | parent | on: Dear Newsweek: RTFM Suspect they meant hungarian notation.-----
 moomin 43 days ago | link | parent | on: Please reconsider the Boolean evaluation of midnig... I think what he was saying was: * You should use + only for operations that form an abelian group across the domain * In those cases, it makes sense for the identity to be false.The truth is, time doesn't have a sensible addition/combination operator, never mind an identity and inverse, so it isn't even a group.-----
 baddox 43 days ago | link Okay, I definitely buy that. It makes sense to add a duration (timedelta in Python) to a time, but not to add times to one another.This is venturing off topic, but if you really wanted to, you could define addition for times in terms of timedeltas. It makes sense to subtract times and get a timedelta, so you could define addition as the subtraction with signed times and signed timedeltas. So, since `time(today) - time(yesterday) = timedelta(1 day)`, we could say that `time(today) + time(yesterday) = -timedelta(1 day)` and `time(today) - -time(yesterday) = timedelta(1 day)`. It's a bit strange to define the notion of a signed time object, but it could work.-----
 moomin 53 days ago | link | parent | on: Why is printing “B” dramatically slower than print... Hard to see how the OP could have tracked this down, being unaware of the feature.-----
 moomin 55 days ago | link | parent | on: Cryptocontracts Will Turn Contract Law Into a Prog... I don't remember that ending well...-----
 marcosdumay 55 days ago | link Warning, this is a spoiler. If you want to read the book, don't read it.I simply can't get how the characters kept being human, even after not locked into a body anymore, and turning themselves into several different forms just for fun. In those circumstances, it could end in no other way... but it is a very bizarre set of circumstances.Also, the lack of ambition of post-singularity beings annoys me to no end.-----
 moomin 71 days ago | link | parent | on: An expanded comment on Clojure web development It's worth pointing out that in the first case what you get is a pure function that you can test without any mocking whatsoever.Sinatra's lovely, though.-----
 auvrw 70 days ago | link heh, i wouldn't know anything about ruby. that was flask, of course.the promise of clojure to me (aside from liking lisp) is similar to that of node: only having to maintain one codebase for both client and server sides.also, really should say thanks to the author of the original article. returned here today when i realized that korma doesn't create tables and i'll need .... lobos, apparently, which was not mentioned in any of my searches for such a library. why didn't this submission get more upvotes?-----
 moomin 72 days ago | link | parent | on: An expanded comment on Clojure web development And for the most part, there's a serious commitment to composability. e.g. You can add liberator to your luminus project seamlessly without re-engineering.-----
 moomin 72 days ago | link | parent | on: An expanded comment on Clojure web development Luminus is basically just a set of sane defaults for Ring. Anything substantial (e.g. cljs-ajax) is split out into its own library.Basically, I'd recommend luminus until you get opinions of your own (e.g. I rather like bidi).-----
 moomin 76 days ago | link | parent | on: No, Women Don’t Make Less Money Than Men Hey, apparently patriarchy costs women 23% of their wages. But I want to ignore 18% of that. That leaves me with 5% which I don't think is a problem. And I'm a woman, so I can't possibly be perpetuating patriarchy, can I?-----
 More

Search: