spoiler: no.

Missed the most important customisation of them all: disabling that drafted hot corner!

I don’t really get the user extension hate however. Sure we all have to bash JavaScript, but the fact that gnome shell is scriptable and extensible would be a draw to most “power users” imo. And I’m certain disabling user extensions does nothing more than not searching the extension directory in startup and certainly does not disable any core parts of the shell.

Honestly this has no right to be making me so nostalgic. Better days there were not but I miss them nonetheless.

Screw just writing to your MEP to exclude software repositories, write to them to scrap the bill entirely. Mandatory auto copyright enforcement benefits no one except except large studios and labels.

I don’t see how sending magic codes is better UX. It requires the user to leave the context of my application open up some kind of email client, click the link and return to the application.

I’m confused, you disagree with tags and hiding threads, but yet you want a tag to do exactly this.

And to voice this opinion you start the exact kind of thread that you don’t want to see.

Surely you understand that other people feel this way about other topics, hence the existence of other tag suggestion threads.

With this being said I think adding the tag is a good idea, I just find your position contradictory.

• The Humane Representation of Thought - Bret Victor

• On the Turing Completeness of PowerPoint - Tom Wildenhaim

• Watch for Rolling Rocks - 0.5x a Presses - Pannencoek (maybe not strictly cs, but goes into a lot of detail about just how a game can be exploited to ridiculous lengths)

I would say Stephen Kell’s work on the “lurking Smalltalk within Unix” has been on my mind the most.

His papers are full of great information and thoughtful arguments (full list on his personal site). At times, they can be dense, and they might take a few readings to absorb, but that’s true of anything worth reading. It’s all “systems” research and not particularly mathematical, so there shouldn’t be any fundamental barriers.

I think it is worth comparing Unix to SmallTalk/Lisp. The latter systems definitely have a “purity” to them, but people sometimes overlook that Unix can do the same things. His work on liballocs is about reflection over C data types in Unix processes. It has some philosophical similarity to DTrace.

FWIW it also reminds me of one of my blog posts, where someone suggested a Lisp-ish solution, and my response is that “Unix can already do that”. [1]

I think what I like about his work is that it’s inherently “conservative”, trying to understand what existing systems already do – which is surprising in many cases! I think a lot of papers are suggesting new things without adequately understanding what practitioners already do.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~srk31/#onward15

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~srk31/research/papers/kell15towards-preprint.pdf

Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saIFAQdxD-U&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwicN2u6Dro

[1] http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/01/13.html

There is another step which is sort of optimized away… but you can force it to re-appear with the -S gcc option

The compiler, I believe originally generated assembler, which then was assembled into the object file.

I think these days that steep as been optimized away and they are going direct to machine code. (I no longer see “as” running when I compile, but you used to in the Bad Old Days.)

This article has a very low quality: it reports on two not interesting facts (retrieving code via http and loading a DLL from current directory). Why is it upvoted so much?

This article is so confused it actually made me wonder if I might have missed some important information about paths all these years, which could have caused that…

If /directory/file points to a file called file in a directory called directory, where does /directory//file point? Is it a file called file in a directory called directory/? Is it a file called /file in a directory called directory?

/ isn’t allowed to be part of a filename.

It turns out this is implementation-specific.

Only the treatment of // at the beginning of the path is implementation specific.

Luckily, most of the time multiple slashes are to be treated as a single slash.

The pathname resolution is covered by POSIX.

/ is a path that points to the root directory, whatever that means.

As explained in the link above it’s the root directory of the current process, which indeed might not be the same for all processes.

Escaping / (and other characters) is usually done with a backslash (\) character.

As mentioned above / isn’t allowed to be a part of a filename. Even if you precede it by \ it is still not part of the filename, but always treated as a path separator. Thus dir\/file refers to a file called file located in a directory called dir\.

What does ‘/.’ mean?

The link above states that “[t]he special filename dot shall refer to the directory specified by its predecessor.” And since / refers to the root directory of the process, so does /.. POSIX doesn’t have a concept of file extensions.

Never mind that not every user need necessarily have a home directory or that the concept of a ‘user’ may not even exist!

The second link refers to the Wikipedia page for unikernels. I don’t see what a unikernel has to do with a critique POSIX concepts like files or users. It doesn’t implement any of them and therefore is irrelevant in a discussion about them.

This means that whenever paths are passed as arguments in a list of arguments that is separated by spaces, spaces need to be escaped.

That’s not an issue with paths themselves, but with how shells treat whitespace. For example there’s no need to escape whitespace when passing paths with C’s execve().

rm won’t let you remove a symlink to a directory if there’s a slash at the end

That is because the trailing slash causes the path to be resolved to the target of the symlink, which is a directory, which rm doesn’t remove unless -r, -R or -d (some implementations) is specified. Compare the output of stat my-symlink-to-a-directory and stat my-symlink-to-a-directory/.

The irony is it’s not long since someone managed to escape this “secure edge sandbox” and end up with full privelege escalation. The idea that edge is any more secure than any other major browser is laughable.

https://lobste.rs/s/vnaih0/goto_multiple_inheritance_eval Comment thread from last time (a differently formatted version of) this article was posted.

I really don’t see how burger king are causing “an invasion of privacy”. I find it very odd people who are willingly having an always on microphone in their home are complaining about this.

Interested to find out more about how well running Windows programmes from within WSL works. The ability to include Windows programmes within scripts and use piping etc. could be very useful.

Please stop adding author and summary to titles.

Ah, this “awkward squad”.

The C language’s goto, I believe, is limited within function scope. It’s not nearly as dangerous as BASIC’s version, which allows you to warp anywhere in the program. Assembly code has unrestricted jmp, which is just poking the instruction pointer, but that’s bad in source code. What makes C’s goto reasonable or abhorrent is the size of the function. If you have a 20,000-line function, then it can exacerbate your problems but it isn’t the only one.

For non-local jumps in C, you have to use setjmp and longjmp, which have their own restrictions.

With multiple inheritance, the problem is often inheritance. Object-oriented programming has some use in terms of managing allocated blocks of memory, but in general, object-ness is a complication relative to declarative data that we should only use when it’s absolutely needed, and the number of cases where even regular inheritance, much less multiple inheritance, are the cleanest model, is small.

With eval, I generally agree that it doesn’t necessarily deserve a bad rap, but it’s usually a sign that you’re doing something wrong. But as always, there are exceptions.

Recursion doesn’t belong on this list, in my opinion. It’s not weird, and it’s only a problem because a lot of languages have mediocre compilers that can’t handle it. (A good compiler will generate fast, iterative code when possible.) The only environments where I’d put recursion on the “please avoid” list are low latency environments (if recursion depth can’t be known statically) and in embedded systems with very little stack space (at which point, I’d be inclined to favor static memory allocation as much as possible).

Just going by title, tell that to the people who live on $1-2 a day walking plenty. They couldn’t even afford a Ford Pinto. They can’t afford the gas for a hybrid if there’s a significant commute. Doesn’t sound like Im living the budget option with my vehicle.

In my country, they abolished TV licensing and repaced it with a tax that everyone (beyond a minimum level of income) pays whether they use the Yle services or not. I would prefer vans.

I’m assuming this is just trying to scare people into paying the licence. If it isn’t then whatever method there using should clearly be fucking illegal.