Is there anyone in this world needs a caliper of precision between 1cm and 1mm that can't afford a 1mm of precision caliper?
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 518
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 518
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
That is not a flaw of decimals. It is a flaw of you not knowing how precision is encoded in decimals.
0,7583 means 0,7583 ± 0,00005.
0,758300 means 0,75833 ± 0,0000005.
0,76 means 0,76 ± 0,005.
That is why when in a store an item costs 7,5€, we don't say 7,5€. We say 7,50€. Because it is precise to a hundredth of a €, not a tenth of a €.
Precision has nothing to do with the unit system. Or notation of fractions.
0,001m is as precise as 1mm
1/1000m is as precise as 1mm
In SI you don't even have prefixes, you use scientific notation with base units. You don't say neither 1mm nor 0,001m. You say 1x10-3. Which is exactly the same as the other magnitudes of this comment.
If you want precision in imperial, you could as easily say 0,00000000001 inch. It would be as precise as 0,000000000255 mm, or whatever the conversion is.
"deci" is very popular. Just not in the "correct" form "decimeter".
In Spanish it's normal to say "8 décimas", which means 8 tenths. It is context dependent though. For example if speaking in a context where millimeters are used, it will be 8 tenths of a milimiter. That is, 0,8mm.
But yeah, it is very uncommon to use deci and deca. Because they're just not very useful. We are used to 2 digit numbers, or numbers with 2 decimal places. So 87m is not harder to use than 8,7dam.
It's probably also the reason there is no prefix between kilo and mega, or milli and micro. (They are x1000 increments instead of x10).
For the same reason, when in a context of millimeters, it's preferred to say "87mm" instead of "8,7cm".
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Spanish from Spain has an official dictionary that dictates what is correct and isn't. You can't be more prescriptive than that. Sure, that dictionary adds words based on usage, even ones that are clear misspellings of the "real" word, but they are marked as so.
Some people are just elitist.
"Ew? You use the GUI? I'm way better since I do that from the terminal".
But since the terminal has a shit UI, they do all sort of things for it to resemble a GUI more. So they can have the convenience of a GUI while not hurting their pride.
I'm not looking to argue about the importance of my points. I wouldn't have listed so many in that case.
The point I'm trying to make is that this is a very incomplete article, as it doesn't seem that much thought was put on the downsides.
A good article would've considered every angle. And so would probably conclude (if it had a conclusion) that the premise is incorrect, and the world of language design is more nuanced than "having both modifiers and annotations is bad language design".
And at that point, the article would've probably ended up being: when should annotations be used instead of modifiers?
Many of the most popular languages have both modifiers and annotations:
- Java
- Rust
- Python *Javascript
C doesn't have both because it doesn't even have annotations. Idk about C++, but it either doesn't have annotations (like C) or it should be in the list above
All of those have been heavily criticized from a language design PoV. And I've never seen anyone complain about this. People genuinely don't believe this to be an issue.
The closest is
public static int main()for java. But making them annotations would not fix that, only rearrange the issue vertically.I did not intend to sound angry. I was trying to do an honest review of this article. Since I did not consider it good at all.
What is this article? There is no author, and it is written as if it were an objective truth when it is clearly subjective.
There is no conclusion, it's just an introduction paragraph that says "do this, this is good design", followed by a pro-con analysis, and then the article just ends. Given that it has real drawbacks, you would think it would be more nuanced than "do this, this is good design".
Furthermore the analysis is not even complete. The only 2 drawbacks mentioned only affecting the developer of the language. And ignoring more obvious drawbacks that would affect the users of the language:
- Aesthetics. Annotations are just uglier than modifiers. Due to their special syntax instead of just a naked keyword.
- Annotations take up more space. Screen space is valuable, annotations usually are stacked vertically, which takes up a lot of vertical screen space. This is in order to mitigate their use of horizontal screen space by their syntax.
- Disorder. Annotations are not ordered, which means they are harder to parse by a human. And if there is a wall of annotations, a human might miss an important one because it is surrounded by others that are just boilerplate.
- "Downgrading" modifiers to annotations removes their perceived importance. Modifiers modify the class/function/whatever, annotations add to it. Usually, you can ignore annotations and just look at the modifiers. If modifiers are annotations, you have to read the annotations to filter which ones are important to you and which aren't. Which is harder to do due to the previous point "Disorder".
- If annotations were objectively better than modifiers, the logical conclusion would be "your language should not have modifiers, do annotations instead" instead of "if your language has both, remove modifiers".
- Namespacing is not objectively better. I don't want to import "public" in every single file. It's just useless boilerplate at that point. And some dependency might export their own "public". Or even worse, a non-annotation (function, class) named "public". If reserving keywords for modifiers is a concern, you can just prepend the uncommon ones with "__". Nobody is going to complain that they can't use the name "__readonly" because it's reserved.
- Variable declarations do have modifiers too (for example "const" in C). Annotations are awful for variable declarations. See the point about screen space. Same for closures or code blocks.
It's not meaningless. It's saying "if you vote for us, we will make this happen".
If you don't fail to pass laws/resolutions because you're the minority, you won't win votes over.
Could be the third parameter that causes both leftism and big IQ.
Someone would need to do the study on that to be sure though.
Headline: says something. (That is obviously not true and just clickbaiting)
Instant disclaimer: the headline is not good, it should be instead "don't do this other thing".
Later in the article: how do we avoid doing the thing I told you not to do? By doing what I told you not to do.
The dude may be correct (idk, haven't bothered reading the rest of the article), but he doesn't know how to write/communicate. I don't believe he's respecting my time. Just tell in the title what you actually want to talk about.
Don't worry. Let a non dumb dumb explain.
There are many causality relationship kinds.
- Leftist -> big IQ: being leftist makes someone have big IQ
- Leftist <- big IQ: having big IQ makes someone a leftist.
- Leftist <-> big IQ: both 1 and 2. That is, saying "I am a leftist" and saying "I have big IQ" is the same, since one causes the other.
- Third parameter -> leftist AND third parameter -> big IQ: there is something that causes both being leftist and having big IQ.
In case 1, all leftists have big IQ. But NOT all big IQ ppl are leftist.
In case 2, all big IQ ppl are leftist. But NOT all leftists have big IQ.
In case 3, all big IQ ppl are leftist, and all leftists have big IQ.
In case 4, some NOT all leftist have big IQ. And NOT all big IQ ppl are leftist. But some are.
Assuming having big IQ is desirable, leftists would want either case 1 or 3. Since that would mean they have a big IQ.
However, the headline seems to suggest case 2. And in reality. And it could still be case 4.
Of course, in reality there is an uncountable number of parameters, not just 3, so don't take the "all" in my comment as literally "all". Reality probably resembles more case 4.
If this were a feel-good article for leftists, the headline would suggest case 1 or 3. Since that is what leftists want.
Even assuming the best case scenario of case 2 where all big IQ people are leftists. If you define big IQ as "top 10%" and low IQ as "not big IQ": it is technically possible for 90% of leftists to be low IQ. And if low IQ is 50-50 leftist-conservative, 78% of leftists would be low IQ.
5 seconds at every boot and shutdown is important.
The reason you shouldn't blindly benchmark an init system is because most of the time is not caused by the init system itself being slow, but the processes it manages being slow.
As the other commenter says, it is very easy to make the system "faster" by just configuring the timeouts to be lower. If you just set the timeout to 0 it will be very fast, but it won't be a very good system.
You can count em. Another comment said there were 8 workers.
It's even worse than that. They increase the price right after they increase the ad length. As in "well, now that ads are longer, this subscription has more value. Therefore we should increase the price".
And that is shown by the markings.
I just looked one up, it's less than 20€, 0,02mm of precision. There are just 4 markings between 1mm and the next.
So instead of 9 markings, each marking adding 0,01mm, you just add 0,02mm. Doesn't sound complicated at all.
I haven't found an analog one, but a digital one with 0,01mm of precision costs 30€. Maybe an analog one costs 50€.
So if adding 0,02 is too complicated, you can just buy a 0,01 one for 30€ more. Which is the price of a pizza for a tool that will last years.
Anything more precise than 0,01. You probably have a lot of experience using a caliper. Whatever method it uses to display that precision is gonna be second nature.