Wholeheartedly agree.
I also fully expect Biden to acquiesce.
Wholeheartedly agree.
I also fully expect Biden to acquiesce.
Yeah I have to replace the suction side AC line on mine and the OE part alone is about 350-400 and absolutely impossible to find 💀
If everything is illegal, nothing is illegal.
If you’re gonna get thrown in jail if you’re caught regardless, why not go for broke?
I feel like we’re kind of entering an era where direct action and ecology-motivated terrorism are going to start becoming a thing. And I’m honestly not sure that would be a bad thing.
His reading and speaking level is that of a fourth grader. That’s not hyperbole.
smiles contentedly in 2003 1.8T Jetta 5MT
Shut up and take my money
Right? I feel like this has a lot of Old Internet vibes
I’m in this picture and I don’t like it
I really don’t think you’re looking at this from the right angle. This isn’t about being lazy. This isn’t about not double checking work.
My point is that statistically speaking, even the double checkers who check the work of the double checkers may, at some point, miss some really subtle, nuanced condition. Colloquially, these often fall under the category of critical zero-day bugs. Having a language that makes it impossible to even compile code that’s vulnerable to whole categories of exploits and bugs is an objective good. I’m a bit mystified why you’re trying to argue that it’s purely a skill/rigor issue.
Case in point: the LN-100 inertial nav unit used in the F-22 had a bug in it that caused the whole system to unrecoverably crash as the first squadron flew over the International Date Line as it was being deployed to Kaneda air base in Japan. The only reason why they didn’t have to ditch in the pacific was that the tanker was still in radio range; they had to be shepherded back to Honolulu by the tanker, and Northrop Grumman flew an engineering team out to (very literally, heh) hotfix the planes on the tarmac, and then they continued on to Kaneda without issue. TLDR: even with systems that enforce extreme rigor (code was developed and tested under DO-178B), mistakes can and do happen. Having a language that guards against that is just one more level of safety, and that’s a good thing.
That’s really not how software development works.
I care a lot about code quality and robustness. But big projects are almost NEVER done solo. Thus, your code is only as strong as the weakest developer on your team.
Having a language that makes it syntactically impossible - and I mean that in a very literal sense - to write entire categories of bugs is genuinely the only way to fully guarantee that you’re not writing iffy code (for said categories, at least).
Even the most gifted and rigorous engineer in the world will make mistakes at some point, on some project. We are humans. We are fallible. We make mistakes. We get distracted. We fuck up. We have things on our mind sometimes. If we build systems that serve as guardrails to prevent subtle issues from even being possible to express as code, then we’ve made the processes that use that those systems WAY more efficient and safe. Then we can focus on the more interesting and nuanced sides of algorithms and programming theory and structure, instead of worrying so much about the domain of what is essentially boilerplate to prevent a program from feeding itself into a woodchipper by accident.
Stored as thin sample slices in binders, as tradition dictates
It’s just tradition at this point. And tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
Also: we know Republicans don’t give a single flying fuck about tradition when the shoe is on the other foot and it’s getting in the way of their power grabs. The Supreme Court would be very different if they actually cared about respecting traditions in government (amongst many other things)
Don’t tempt me with a good time
deleted by creator
Never have I ever been punched in the face by a gorilla
Ah. Yeah, I suppose that makes more sense. But also, I feel like the distinction is somewhat pedantic. You’re openly saying you’re voting for them, which is essentially an implied endorsement. That’s not a tortured chain of logic. That’s a pretty direct inference.
Begun, the Emu Wars have.
No, the best way to troll someone is to tell them what you’re going to do, make it clear they can’t do anything to stop you or change your mind, and then follow through.
This is being done in an extremely intentional fashion.
It’s also underlining the value of freedom of speech, which I am also sure is quite intentional.