“Register bit twiddling.” Setting all the modes that all their various cards can operate in, with the associated code for sending the bit updates over the connection bus. Tedious stuff that’s very prone to copy-paste errors if written by hand.

At some point you have to take AMDs word for it that these codes = this functionality, but if the right graphics come out then it can’t be so wrong.

Because if you disable browser autocomplete, what’s obviously going to happen is that everyone will have a text file open with every single one of their passwords in so that they can copy-paste them in. So prevent that. But what happens if you prevent that is that everyone will choose terrible, weak passwords instead. Something like September2025! probably meets the ‘complexity’ requirement…

A bit like when we renamed all the master/slave terminology using different phrasing that’s frankly more useful a lot of the time, I think it’s about time we got rid of this “child” task nonsense. I suggest “subtask”. Then we can reword these books into something that no-one can make stupid jokes about any more, like “how to keep your subs in line” and “how to punish your subs when they’ve misbehaved”.

Well now. When we’ve been enforcing password requirements at work, we’ve had to enforce a bizarre combination of “you must have a certain level of complexity”, but also, “you must be slightly vague about what the requirements actually are, because otherwise it lets an attacker tune a dictionary attack against you”. Which just strikes me as a way to piss off our users, but security team say it’s a requirement, therefore, it’s a requirement, no arguing.

“One” special character is crazy; I’d have guessed that was a catch-all for the other strange password requirements:

• can’t have the same character more than twice in a row
• can’t be one of the ten-thousand most popular passwords (which is mostly a big list of swears in russian)
• all whitespace must be condensed into a single character before checking against the other rules

We’ve had customers’ own security teams asking us if we can enforce “no right click” / “no autocomplete” to stop their users in-house doing such things; I’ve been trying to push back on that as a security misfeature, but you can’t question the cult thinking.

It’s a simple alphabet for computing because most of the early developers of computing developed using it and therefore it’s supported everywhere. If the Vikings had developed early computers then we could use the 24 futhark runes, wouldn’t have upper and lower case to worry about, and you wouldn’t need to render curves in fonts because it’s all straight lines.

But yeah, agreed. Very widely spoken. But don’t translate programming languages automatically; VBA does that for keywords and it’s an utter nightmare.

If you move past the ‘brute force’ method of solving into the ‘constraints’ level, it’s fairly easy to check whether there are multiple possible valid solutions. Using a programming language with a good sets implementation (Python!) makes this easy - for each cell, generate a set of all the values that could possibly go there. If there’s only one, fill it in and remove that value from all the sets in the same row/column/block. If there’s no cells left that only take a unique value, choose the cell with the fewest possibilities and evaluate all of them, recursively. Even a fairly dumb implementation will do the whole problem space in milliseconds. This is a very easy problem to parallelize, too, but it’s hardly worth it for 9x9 sodokus - maybe if you’re generating 16x16 or 25x25 ‘alphabet’ puzzles, but you’ll quickly generate problems beyond the ability of humans to solve.

The method in the article for generating ‘difficult’ puzzles seems mighty inefficient to me - generate a valid solution, and then randomly remove numbers until the puzzle is no longer ‘unique’. That’s a very calculation-heavy way of doing it, need to evaluate the whole puzzle at every step. It must be the case that a ‘unique’ sodoku has at least 8 unique numbers in the starting puzzle, because otherwise there will be at least two solutions, with the missing numbers swapped over. Preferring to remove numbers equal to values that you’ve already removed ought to get you to a hard puzzle faster?

As an example of a language that many people are familiar with, which is likely to be in long-term use where maintainability is most important, and which can almost read like pseudocode anyway, sure - probably the best ‘real language’ choice.

You can write an unmaintainable fucking mess in any language. Rust won’t save you from cryptic variable naming, copy-paste code, a complete absence of design patterns, dreadful algorithms, large classes of security issues, unfathomable UX, or a hundred other things. “Clean code” is (mostly) a separate issue from choice of language.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t like this book. It manages to be both long-winded and facile at the same time. A lot of people seem to read it and take the exact wrong lessons about maintainability from it. I think that it would mostly benefit from being written in pseudocode - concentrating on any particular language might distract from the message. But having a few examples of what a shitfest looks like in a few specific languages might help

That is a good read, thank you. Didn’t have procedures, had two different brokersge systems running at once because they’d no procedures to follow, lost a fortune.

I’m thinking it’s the "most expensive bug in history so far - haven’t seen an accurate total for CrowdStrike’s little faux pas, yet.

My old job had a lot of embedded programming - hard real-time Z80 programming, for processors like Z800s and eZ80s to control industrial devices. Actually quite pleasant languages to do bit-twiddling in, and it’s great to be able to step through the debugger and see that what the CPU is running is literally your source code, opcode by opcode.

Back when a computers were very simple things - I’m thinking a ZX Spectrum, where you can read directly from the input ports and write directly into the framebuffer, no OS in your way just code, then assembly made a lot of sense, was even fun. On modem computers, it is not so fun:

• x64 is just a fucking mess

• you cannot just read and write what you want, the kernel won’t let you. So you’re going to be spending a lot of your time calling system routines.

• 99% of your code will just be arranging data to suit the calling convention of your OS, and doing pointless busywork like stack pointer alignment. Writing some macros to do it for you makes your code look like C. Might as well just use C, in that case.

Writing assembly makes some sense sometimes - required for embedded, you might be writing something very security conscious where timing is essential, or you might be lining up some data for vectorisation where higher-level languages don’t have the constructs to get it right - but these are very small bits of code. You would be mad to consider “making the whole apple pie” in assembly.

Man alive, I thought that Mozilla had been doing their own Personal Package Archives so that we didn’t have to deal with Ubuntu packaging it as a Snap anymore. And this is doubly disappointing.

I know you jest, but I’m going to guess it’s for the same reason that the RPCS3 developers didn’t just concentrate on the ‘popular’ games. If they know that all the janky broken games work properly, then they’ll have confidence that there’s no subtle issues hiding in the nearly-perfect ones. A rising tide lifts all boats.

They didn’t pull DMC2 just out of principle? Foolishness, Dante, foolishness.

Yeah; I’ve a 6700XT, and it appears to be a pretty even match for a 7600XT, looking at Phoronix’ graphs. Makes a pretty good job of 60 Hz / 1440p on recent games, maybe turn down a setting or two, and can usually do 144Hz / 1440p on games that are a few years old. If you can get one of those for substantially cheaper than one of these, I’d say go for it.

That’s almost exactly the problem. English uses helper words exclusively for future tense, and indeed, helper words like ‘to’ to form an infinitive. ‘Will’ is the helper word to show that something is a fact, that it is definite - grammatically, it is indicative. (The sun will rise tomorrow.) ‘Would’ is the helper word to show that something is an opinion, or dependent on something else - grammatically, it is subjunctive. (If you push that, it would fall; if it was cheaper, I would buy it.)

Spanish has both helper words for future tense (conjugations of ‘ir’, analogous to ‘going to’, often used in speech) and straight-up conjugations for future tense (doesn’t exist in English; often used in writing). It also conjugates verbs differently if they’re indicative, subjunctive, or imperative (asking or telling someone to do something). This is how Spanish manages to have fifty-odd ways to conjugate every verb, which is very confusing to English speakers who make do with three ways and helper words.

Translating a ‘future tense sentence’ for Duolingo requires you to have psychic powers about whether something is fact or opinion, which helper words are wanted, and so on, and it usually comes down to guessing between multiple ‘correct’ answers, which Duo will reject all but one of.

Absolutely this. I’d have argued that ‘every day’ is a more idiomatic translation than ‘daily’, and what native speakers would say, but that’s irrelevant. English tends to emphasise the end of sentences as the most important part, so all these translations are correct depending on the nuance that you intend:

• Daily in Hamburg, many ships arrive (as opposed to eg. cars, or few ships)
• Daily, many ships arrive in Hamburg / Many ships arrive daily in Hamburg (as opposed to eg. Bremen)
• Many ships arrive in Hamburg daily (as opposed to eg. weekly)

Wouldn’t question any of those constructions as a native speaker. In fact, original responders’ example was why I gave up on Duolingo myself originally, some years ago. Translating ‘future tense’ sentences from Spanish into English or back again is always going to be a matter of opinion, since English doesn’t have the verb conjugations that Spanish does. Guessing the ‘sanctified answer’ is tedious, when a lot of the time it’s not even the most natural form of a sentence.

Well; setting aside the small reference pool of modern gaming journalism, I’m not sure that it is such a big step from HL to CoD, just a bit of a step down. HL is as much of a ‘corridor shooter’ as you could ever hope to find - there’s one path through it, and I doubt that many people deviate from it all that much on a playthrough. The difference is, that HL is super imaginatively dressed up on that one path. The levels have a real sense of place. Like you say, the puzzles are never all that difficult, but they’re extremely well-integrated into the design; they feel like the kind of obstacles that you might have to overcome in a top-secret research facility when disaster has struck. And they’re mainly new puzzles; nothing hackneyed or tropey here.

From the article:

In many ways, Half-Life can be seen as an indictment of the video game industry: how can a 25 year-old game be better than almost every shooter that has followed it? Why has its ambition only ever been exceeded only by its own sequel? It paints a picture of a stagnated industry still playing with toys from the 1990s.

I think there’s two problems here; one is that it’s safer to play follow-the-leader, and one is learning the wrong lesson from the leader. Kind of hard to believe now, but HL was considered a graphic powerhouse when it came out, requiring some of the top class machines of the day. But I think that the kind of ‘immersive feeling of wonder’ that HL has via its design conjuring up a real place is mostly due to its environmental storytelling and the novelty of not knowing what to expect around each corner. The imitators saw the twisty-but-linear game, and decided that the most important thing to copy was to have as much graphics as possible. Can’t copy the imaginativeness and the care, so yeah, perpetually taking control away from you for a shooting gallery setpiece, when in fact that only draws you in in a superficial way.

I wouldn’t mind other games copying HL if what they wanted to copy was inventiveness, experimentation, and non-stop gameplay. Copying the things that were new about HL is the complete wrong thing to copy, though.

Fine advice generally, but I don’t know that many Panams or Reginas…

With reading the article:

• console discs have 60 GB of space, might as well export your assets at a quality which fills it

Your sight-unseen summary is far too detailed in comparison.

Release notes, innit? For a very technical new feature; that seems enough. If it was a bug, then maybe a line about how we missed it; if it’s user facing, what new functionality it enables. You can always go look at the PR if you want the real detail.