And OP talks about Alchemy, which commonly uses the energy that different materials have inherently to create magical artifacts.
It’s literally using what God already created.
And OP talks about Alchemy, which commonly uses the energy that different materials have inherently to create magical artifacts.
It’s literally using what God already created.
If it involves pointers, not unlikely.
Easy: murder everyone. Which will probably be the course of action this Skynet will take.
I think the Butlerian Jihad can’t do shit against Judgment Day.
Honestly, given the context of a browser, Javascript’s “Everything is better than crashing” philosophy does not seem too out-of-place. Yes, the website might break, but at least it would be theoretically usable still.
Yes, a statically typed language would help, but I’d rather not have one that is “these two types are slightly different, fuck you, have a segfault”, but rather one that is slightly more flexible.
With C, you need to carefully craft your own gun with just iron ingots and a hammer. You will shoot yourself in the foot, but at least you’ll have the knowledge that it was your craftsmanship that led to it.
With C++, there are already prebuilt guns and tons of modifications that you can combine at will. If you shove it in the right way, you can make a flintlock shoot a 50 cal, but don’t complain when your whole leg gets obliterated.
And yet somehow it evolved to become something that will last to the heat death of the universe.
I’ve grown used to it with time, though. Once you know it’s “quirks”, it’s not so bad.
Yet not many people can brag about breaking half of the internet in one swift blow.
Specially the shiny stuff.
but a few JS-blocking users have complained about having a barebones experience.
Well no shit, have they ever wondered why the language was created in the first place?
No need to be sorry, I am well aware I can be wrong, and I prefer to learn something new than being bashed for being wrong.
Maybe I phrased it in a way different than I thought about it. I didn’t mean to claim that Shannon-Fano or Huffman are THE most efficient ways of doing it, but rather that comparing it to the massive overhead of running a LLM to compress a file, the current methods are way more resource efficient, even one as obsolete as Shannon-Fano codes.
I should probably have mentioned an algorithm like LZMA, or gzip, like you did.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t algorithms like Huffman or even Shannon-Fano code with blocks already pack the files as efficiently as possible? It’s impossible to compress a file beyond it’s entropy, and those algorithms get pretty damn close to it.
Say what you want about it, but it will not go down without using everything in the vicinity as a weapon if ammo runs out. While others go down, they will be kamikazeing themselves to get the job done.
Would you prefer Javascript?
Summoning your GDPR rights if you live in the EU (right to deletion and right to forgetting IIRC).
Well, Threads was meant as a Twitter competitor. Seems like the toxicity levels are starting to get on-par.