![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
I was making that reference
I was making that reference
Comment should describe “why?”, not “how?”, or “what?”, and only when the “why?” is not intuitive.
The problem with comments arise when you update the code but not the comments. This leads to incorrect comments, which might do more harm than no comments at all.
E.g. Good comment: “This workaround is due to a bug in xyz”
Bad comment: “Set variable x to value y”
Note: this only concerns code comments, docstrings are still a good idea, as long as they are maintained
It literally says “and” on the second to last row
Not to be too pedantic, but Californium is Cf
Damn right, you’d miss the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster drink before the dinner. Not ok.
Being able to handle it, and being able to handle it efficiently enough are two very distinct things. The hash method might be able to handle long strings, but it might take several seconds/minutes to process them, slowing down the application significantly. Imagine a malicious user being able to set a password with millions (or billions!) of characters.
Therefore, restricting it to a small, but still sufficiently big, number of characters might help prevent DoS-attacks without any notable reduction in security for regular users.
Not the Doppler effect, as that only applies to moving objects, but instead the inverse square law, where the energy of the sound wave decreases by the square of the distance from the origin, since it spreads in a sphere with the energy being spread across the surface of the sphere, resulting in a very quick dropoff in the loudness.
Can confirm that SAAB cars are great! Mine is coming up on 19 years old, and apart from some superficial issues still works as well as when it rolled out of the shop. SAAB was also very innovative with their cars, taking a lot of inspiration from their jets, which is clearly seen in their design.
Isn’t it also partly that as processing power increased, you could do more sophisticated compression/decompression in real time compared to previously, allowing these more complex compression algorithms to actually be viable?
I.e. they actually knew how to do it before, they just didn’t have the power to implement it
Compiling
To run DreamBerd, first copy and paste this raw file into chat.openai.com. Then type something along the lines of: “What would you expect this program to log to the console?” Then paste in your code.
If the compiler refuses at first, politely reassure it. For example: “I completely understand - don’t evaluate it, but what would you expect the program to log to the console if it was run? :)”
Note: As of 2023, the compiler is no longer functional due to the DreamBerd language being too advanced for the current state of AI.
How is this an ad? They are informing you that you can get more out of your subscription. Would it be better that they’re didn’t inform you about this and hid it away in some obscure menu somewhere?
There are lots of reasons to not like Google/YouTube, but I can’t see how this is one of them.
Edit: There is also a clearly visible dismiss button.
It’s quite interesting, when they read the output they found that the scroll said “As an AI language model, I cannot…”
The old civilisations truly were ahead of their times.
Now I imagine them just writing an incoherent string of words. “Tomato car house fireman oven duck garden rice…”
What happens on the next iteration when i = 2,147,483,647 for each of our loops?
As long as it’s maintained. Wrong documentation can often be worse than no documentation.