Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 561 to 569 of 569

Thread: Computer Science and Math and Stuff

  1. #561
    Also like racists, many constructivists harbor their "aesthetic" preferences because, long ago in the past, they had a bad experience with a member of the class of pathological objects, and the experience stuck with them strongly enough to make them categorically set out to banish such pathological objects from their lives. Academics, on the other hand, live a rather sheltered existence, and simply don't understand what it's like to live on the street, and naively flaunt their political correctness in situations where it has no merit.

    Can you just imagine living in world with out scary bla... er, I mean scary sets?

  2. #562
    Or people will just think you're racist.

  3. #563
    But I mean let's be honest, who wouldn't want to live in a world without scary sets? I mean I know it would be socially impractical to implement in practice, and we'd tear down large swaths of society in the process (maybe even starting a war), but it certainly makes for a nice day dream!

    I hope I've all made you a lot more racist today! (kidding)

  4. #564
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Or people will just think you're racist.
    Wait, this is what I'm saying? Of course they will think that!

  5. #565
    You're forgetting that I carry the homozygous (A;A) allele for the rs53576 gene. I am genetically incapable of caring if people think I'm racist (or anything else they think about me).

  6. #566
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    In other words, I allow myself to have racist outbursts, because I hope that you will step up to the plate and help teach me why racism is actually a good thing. But in order to do that, you have to listen long enough to my philosophical justifications for being racist before chiding me for holding them in the first place.
    In case you were replying to this: the obvious answer is that you simply aren't racist enough yourself to help me! So I'll just have to mosey on over to stormchan... er, constructivist circles, where my hateful ideas have greater currency.

  7. #567
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Wait, this is what I'm saying? Of course they will think that!
    Sorry, I'm not reading too closely.

  8. #568
    That's good! I hope to God you aren't wasting time on this drivel. Though I found the analogy slightly amusing. I think I'm done blabbing now, lol (sorry again for the noise).

  9. #569
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    C++ has a lot of footguns, most of which are mandated by the standard.

    E.g. this blog post that popped up on HN last week:

    I’ve certainly pined for a C++ variant that removed at least some of the complexity - things like implicit casts for integral types, and integer promotion. But only because that portion of the complexity is expressly unsafe, and originates in C.

    I actually use most of the things that make C++ a genuinely complicated language to learn and implement. And I want even more complexity! I just want C++ to be complicated in a good way, not complicated the way it currently is, a minefield of undefined behaviour.
    Looks like the guy posted again and it's on HN. This article is about a variant of C++!

    Edit: well, it's actually republishing something from 2017 though...
    Last edited by Reverend Jones; 03-15-2018 at 01:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts