Yes, having built-in generic containers and algorithms is the part that keeps me favoring C++. Bespoke versions of these can always be written in C (and work fine) but C++ makes it much easier and saves time. Lambdas and function objects are also useful.
I've never seen another repo with public commit access like that. I guess the project is niche enough that you don't get spammed with bad or malicious commits.
>The idea is to provide unmoderated side channel for random contributors to work on a project, with similar rationale as e.g. Wikipedia - that given enough interested people, the quality will grow rapidly and occassional "vandalism" will get fixed quickly. Of course this may not work nearly as well for software, but here we are, to give it a try.
When pugs (a perl6 implementation in Haskell) was a thing, you gained commit access by asking and it was immediately granted to everyone. It was insane and awesome.
This has been my experience in the early 2000 with sourceforge. You went to the related irc channel, introduced yourself, asked for access and they would add you to the project. You could work on a game that you liked, a jabber client, and even code::blocks at some point. Boost (c++ libraries ) was more serious, you'd have to create the implementation and documentation according to their format and post it to the forum, then they would ask you to defend certain parts or reject due to bloat/DRY/unnecessary.
Everything felt more like a community effort back then.
"best" meaning the best decision the LFS team can make given their limited, unpaid time and resources. They feel maintaining guides for two parallel init systems is unsustainable even though they would prefer not to have systemd as the only option.
The actual best decision would be to stick with his principles and make LFS be sysvinit-only instead, with zero fucks given about Gnome/KDE if they refuse to play ball.
I for one will not be strong armed into systemd or any other tech. If KDE makes it impossible for me to run without systemd, it goes into the trash bin. I will just install Trinity (KDE3) and be done with it. (Gnome deserves no consideration whatsoever.)
I like the approach; it reminds me of Towards Zero Defect Programming by Allan Stavely and Dijkstra's idea of deriving programs mechanically from their specifications.
Were LLMs used to produce some of the writing? Not sure how to describe it, but it has a certain recognizable writing style (e.g. "The Problem"/"The Solution", lots of bulleted lists with bolded first words, etc.) Readers might appreciate if AI use is disclosed.
Given they have 30 years of what looks to be safety critical UNIX experience, it’s probably not AI. They might come from rigorous fields like medical device engineering where writing and design are continuously audited for spec and standard conformance
Yeah the AI smelling writing style put me off. If you have 30 years of experience then you should have had ample time to build your own prose and style. I'll pass on this.
The "historical tradition" justification for rulings the Supreme Court seems to favor in recent years when determining if something is constitutional is fascinating. Presumably this court would have ruled that the original Bank of the United States was unconstitutional since it had no "tradition" of existence at that point in time. I guess new traditions were made unconstitutional around 1850 and the existing ones were grandfathered in.
What’s unusual about it? A bunch of guys wrote a document with rules. What they did and did not do after establishing those rules is pretty relevant to understanding what the rules mean, right?
Say Linus Torvolds wrote legally binding rules for the design of the Linux kernel. How he designed the Linux kernel after writing those rules would be quite relevant to what the rules mean, right?
Any person in power might violate the rules and just because they happened to be one of the people who helped write them doesn't mean they wouldn't violate them. In fact, they would be more likely to get away with bending the rules due to being one of the people who made the rules.
That’s possibly true, but it’s usually not a helpful argument. The historical analysis typically is used to define the exception to a clear textual rule.
Here, the first sentence of Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
You can say this isn’t a categorical dictate and there’s exceptions. One way to support that is by saying the founders created an independent central bank immediately, so they thought it wasn’t covered by this rule. But as you recognize, the founders could have just been breaking the rule. But that leads you to the conclusion that the central bank isn’t permissible.
> But that leads you to the conclusion that the central bank isn’t permissible.
The court could have just as easily have cited Framers that opposed the creation of the Bank as evidence the Constitution did not permit it. Or cited Jackson's strong opposition to the Bank as an example of there being a tradition of the executive taking control of monetary policy. My point is that the historical argument is arbitrary; you can pick and choose which examples get to be considered part of the canonical tradition to support preconceived conclusions (e.g. "the President shouldn't be allowed to interfere with an independent agency (the Fed)" or "the President should be allowed to interfere with an independent agency (the FTC)").
Do any Western universities have significant investments/connections to Iranian institutions? If not, then what would their students be pressuring the universities to do? I am pretty sure virtually every university administration has long ago cut ties due to sanctions and would gladly condemn Iran’s government.
> “While this bill prohibits Members from buying new stocks, it does nothing to remove the conflict of interest that arises from owning or selling existing stocks. Members can still act on legislation, investigations, and briefings that directly influence the value of their stocks for personal benefit”
It seems like an improvement, but it doesn’t solve the issue of members of Congress using political office to financially benefit themselves, e.g. voting for defense spending packages to boost shares in a defense contractor they hold.
Republicans will try to use this to deflect from Trump’s blatant market manipulation and use of his office to enrich himself. Meanwhile the revolving door will continue and members of Congress of all parties will still get rich from their privileges one way or another. So it goes.
Around the same time not far from there I saw a Waymo car partially blocking a lane of traffic as if it had frozen partway through turning. Wonder if they temporarily shut down all cars in that area until they could figure out what was going on.
reply