it_depends_man

All the ones where the idea was to "just start something, grow grow grow, then figure out monetization later" is wild to me.

E.g. reddit. It worked. CEO is rich, site is still online. Somehow they got investors probably, presumably.

I get not having profit. I get not having income, if it's in some prototype phase. But having no plan or idea whatsoever for how to monetize and still getting VC? Wild.

I had a phase as a teen when I was constantly swearing. My parents told me that, it can't be that bad and it's really annoying.

And it's mostly an impulse reaction and we're kind of above that.

It doesn't mean that you can't express pain or anger. You're just not insulting people's ears if you scream "Aaaaah" when you bang your toe against a table leg or something. And your environment really doesn't deserve it. Most people are somewhat compassionate and you're just swearing while they try to help... that's not a pleasant environment for them to be in. It makes it harder to help you.

No to both questions. I just made a change and that was it. And it has never stopped me from expressing anything.

If anything, it lends more weight to the regular words.

A _______ criminal? Or a criminal?

You can still put the same emotion into the words, they're just not swear words. :)

Having an easy on the eyes markdown that is also easy to parse would be cool.

But YAML does these things:

https://ruudvanasseldonk.com/2023/01/11/the-yaml-document-from-hell

which are not excusable, for any reason.

I'm not sure now that I think about it, but I find this more explicit and somehow more free than json. Which can't be true, since you can just

{"anything you want":{...}}

But still, this:

<my_custom_tag>
<this> 
<that>
<roflmao>
...

is all valid.

You can more closely approximate the logical structure of whatever you're doing without leaving the internal logic of the... syntax?

<car>
<tyre> air, <valve>closed</valve>  </tyre>
<tyre> air, <valve>closed</valve>  </tyre>
<tyre>      <valve>open</valve>  </tyre>
<tyre> air, <valve>closed</valve>  </tyre>
</car>

Maybe I just like the idea of a closing tag being very specific about what it is that is being closed (?). I guess I'm really not sure, but it does feel nicer to my brain to have starting and closing tags and distinguishing between what is structure, what is data, what is inside where.

My peeve with json is that... it doesn't properly distinguish between strings that happen to be a number and "numbers" resulting in:

myinput = {"1":"Hello",1:"Hello"}
tempjson = json.dumps(myinput)
output = json.loads(tempjson)
print(output)
>>>{'1': 'Hello'}

in python.

I actually don't like the attributes in xml, I think it would be better if it was mandatory that they were also just more tagged elements inside the others, and that the "validity" of a piece of xml being a certain object would depend entirely on parsing correctly or not.

I particularly hate the idea of attributes in svg, and even more particularly the way they defined paths.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/SVG/Tutorial/Paths#curve_commands

It works, but I consider that truly ugly. And also I don't understand because it would have been trivial to do something like this:

<path><element>data</element><element>data</element></path>

YAML

To each their own indeed.

;)

It is very cool, specifically as a human readable mark down / data format.

The fact that you can make anything a tag and it's going to be valid and you can nest stuff, is amazing.

But with a niche use case.

Clearly the tags waste space if you're actually saving them all the time.

Good format to compress though...

At the cost of sounding naive and stupid

It may be a naive question, but it's a very important naive question. Naive doesn't mean bad.

The answer is that that is not possible, because the compiler is supposed to translate the very specific language of C into mostly very specific machine instructions. The programmers who wrote the code, did so because they usually expect a very specific behavior. So, that would be broken.

But also, the "unsafety" is in the behavior of the system and built into the language and the compiler.

It's a bit of a flawed comparison, but you can't build a house on a foundation of wooden poles, because of the advantages that wood offers, and then complain that they are flammable. You can build it in steel, but you have to replace all of the poles. Just the poles on the left side won't do.

And you can't automatically detect the unsafe parts and just patch those either. If we could, we could just fix them directly or we could automatically transpile them. Darpa is trying that at the moment.

No.

https://www.sovereigntechfund.de/programs/applications#requirements

Take a look.

Though, if you have not heard of the program before, you're probably not involved with a project that qualifies.

Glockness Monster *teleports behind you*

"nothing personal, kid"

"The computer" decides when to install updates and which ones to install.

No.

You know how boxers don't beat up their trainers?

This is like that.