Can anyone explain the conversion from "a bottle of water" to something like kWh?
okamiueru
joined 2 years ago
Communists just think you are a little bit thick and/or uneducated. Maybe a little bit cute. Like a child who doesn't know what words mean.
Can a genocide like that be consider war? Not that the statement is wrong.
I did eventually yes. Thanks for asking. I was exhausted yesterday, and upon reading my comment again, I get the downvotes. Being a second language doesn't fully explain the wrong tone there. The article was a lot more insightful and in depth than I had mistakenly assumed.
After reading it tho, it seemed a lot more focused on performance than I think would be warranted. But that could be due to different concerns and constraints than where I'm used to working. I'd focus more on the mechanisms that best expresses the intent, and although they do discuss this well, the Venn diagram for the appropriate use of exceptions and error codes don't overlap as much in my world.
And, it's not like I'm arguing that they are wrong. It's an opinion on a choice for a tradeoff that I only think, while allowing the possibility of being wrong, might miss the the mark. Stack unwinding is by its nature less explicit for the state it leaves behind. So it shouldn't be a question of either error codes or exceptions, but which are most appropriate to express what, and when.
Even for Rust, where monads are preferred and part of the language to express and handle error codes, I would say that the statement of "newer languages like Rust don’t allow the use of exceptions", seems incorrect to me. Something like panic!("foo"); coupled with panic::catch_unwind(|| { ... } }); I believe would unwind the stack similar to that of a throw/catch.
Anyways. Thanks for reminding me to actually read the post. It was well worth it, and very insightful.
Make it have to follow the same regulations as other currencies and banks. If it looks like currency, and functions like currency, maybe it should be considered currency.
Alacritty is fine. If you're not combining it with tmux and zsh/fish, id pluck those fruits first.
If only this "committing crime as a group" could be applied to corporations, so we'd end up with the whole board in jail whenever there is wage theft, price collusion, environmental negligence, money laundering, etc, etc.
I think your example is pretty good. The important detail is that the timetable for Bulgaria, would be fairly similar to your own, except it has some kind of offset, which would be more or less exactly what the time zones express. So, instead of everyone that want to relate to some other places' relative time schedule, having to do it themselves, we just use... Time zones. that's what time zones are.
Without it, you'd have the same complexities inherent with time zones, but with none of the benefits.
A case of a problem being solved, and mistaking inherent challenges, i.e. the sun moving with a different offset around the world, as a fault of the existing approach. The suggested alternatives would improve nothing, and instead make the problem worse.
I've seen the sentiment expressed before. The logical conclusions of the former, seems, plainly put, terrible.
It would mean one global time, let's say UTC. Everyone who travels anywhere need to adjust their entire relation to hours of the day.
We've very likely always had "time zones", even before we had clocks and hours of the day. We said "at noon", "at dawn", etc.
Where we really fucked up was daylight savings time. But time zones? What's the alternative?
- Time zones, in general
- Time zones that differ in something other whole hours
Do you mean just the latter?
My biggest gripe is the lack of respect/understanding for the importance of data models and clear domain boundaries.
Most things that end up as "technical debt" can be traced to this. Sometimes, it's unavoidable, because what the data models changes, or the requirements of the domain, etc.
And, it's very innocent looking differences sometimes. Like "We know that the external system state will change from A to B, so we can update that value on our side to B". Suddenly you have an implicit dependency that you don't express as such.
Or, things like having enum that represents some kind of concept that isn't mutually exclusive. Consider enum values of A and B. Turns out this really represented AZ, and BP (for some inherent dependency to concepts Z and P). Someone later on extends this to include ZQ. And now, suddenly the concept of Z, is present in both AZ and ZQ, and some consumer that switches on concept Z, needs to handle the edge case of AZ... And we call this "technical debt".