lad

There are many regexes that validate email, and they usually aren’t compliant with the RFC, there are some details in the very old answer on SO. So, better not validate and just send a confirmation, than restrict and lock people out, imo

and which of these two you are going to get paid more for

It looks like exactly 4 characters are missing, so public and static would fit, but I never saw static instead of public static, so I think you’re right. On the other hand, I don’t use Java anymore and couldn’t be bothered about such details

Depends on what was the course about. If it’s about computation, then sure. If it’s about OOP or architecture design (this one I wouldn’t expect, unfortunately, but would be nice if it was taught somewhere), then the point is not just to run something.

I mostly come to prefer composition, this approach apparently even has a wiki page. But that’s in part because I use Rust that forbids inheritance, and don’t have such bullshit (from delegation wiki page):

class A {
    void foo() {
        // "this" also known under the names "current", "me" and "self" in other languages
        this.bar();
    }

    void bar() {
        print("a.bar");
    }
}

class B {
    private delegate A a; // delegation link

    public B(A a) {
        this.a = a;
    }

    void foo() {
        a.foo(); // call foo() on the a-instance
    }

    void bar() {
        print("b.bar");
    }
}

a = new A();
b = new B(a); // establish delegation between two objects

Calling b.foo() will result in b.bar being printed, since this refers to the original receiver object, b, within the context of a. The resulting ambiguity of this is referred to as object schizophrenia

Translating the implicit this into an explicit parameter, the call (in B, with a a delegate) a.foo() translates to A.foo(b), using the type of a for method resolution, but the delegating object b for the this argument.

Why would one substitute b as this when called from b.a is beyond me, seriously.

Even if it is not their fault, what people see is that they provide bad quality service. Very low percentage ofthem will care to read details when Netflix publishes a post-mortem of an issue, assuming they even do.

I feel like ‘a half is one-third more than a third’ is ambiguous and same as in ‘X is N% more than Y’ one may use X or Y as 100%

I’m sure that one interpretation is more common, but I don’t think that it is exclusively correct

Got it. I agree that their drivers are (were?) of exemplary bad quality

But I don’t think that it is realistically possible to drop all the proprietary firmware blobs, and if it’s not maybe it’s better to not actively sabotage something to ‘avoid those being feasible’?

Early returns improve readability in that they make it simpler to read, but I also find them decreasing readability in that you may miss an early return and wonder why is execution not hitting the line you expect it to

What’s the reason to avoid binary blob drivers being feasible? Is that about not being able to use non-free binary blobs in kernel? I don’t quite understand what it even is about

I tried to learn assembly for that, but never did after all

I should have added a ‘/s’, but I thought it is somewhat obvious, it really reminds of all the ‘git gud at C instead of doing Rust’

It’s a dig at people who don’t want to switch to memory-safe languages like rust.

Now that’s a stretch, it could be anything (no, it couldn’t, although I think this may have application to some other pairs of languages)

Sometimes this is useful, though. Other times it’s infuriating 😅

You don’t need to use and learn everything, just pick what you need.

I used to think the same, but now I think you should at least skim through everything. Reason being otherwise you may reinvent the wheel a lot, and there are many use-cases where you really don’t want to do that (but C++ makes it so easy, I was constantly tempted to just do what I want and not look for it being already available)

A lot of computational heavy tasks for science were done in Fortran at least ten years ago (and I think still are). I was told that’s mainly because Fortran has a good deal of libraries for just that, and it was widely taught in academia so this is a common ground between the older and newer generations.

I think it may be gradually superseded by Python, but I don’t know if it is

Oh, I didn’t know that, neat. Then there’s no space for nit-picking

Yes, but it still is about language, not game engine.

Albeit technically, the statement is correct, since it is more specific.

Yeah, “nobody wants to work anymore”, but “we’re not willing to pay for 10+ years of experience, yet we’re only looking for 10+ years of experience”

And after this guys are poking fun on Europeans for not caring about work out of work hours. Man I would prefer the European attitude more, if it’s not an emergency response team (which also should only work during the work hours, it just has those at odd times)