Viewing profile — sicp-enjoyer
sicp-enjoyer
HN member- Joined
- Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 5:15 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 434
- Public activity
- 238 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About sicp-enjoyer
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #35022048
Now you're talking about financial burden again. I don't wish the situation you are describing on anyone, and I am sympathetic to making choices to avoid that happening. I don't th…
-
comment
Comment #35021960
Your comment cautioned against marriage for its "cost". Now you are talking about lifestyle preferences.
-
comment
Comment #35021888
> the failure rate is too high The rate dramatically changes with demographic, for example many of those were married young and did not complete education. > who you pick to marry …
-
comment
Comment #35021822
I have noticed that Phd holders usually advise buckling down and dealing with whatever abuse or bureaucratic nightmares are required to finish. I think I agree with 1 year out, but…
-
comment
Comment #35004870
You are correct. Sorry if I am being pedantic. I was also trying to suggest it could be a b-tree but others have pointed out that it doesn't quite fit the spec.
-
comment
Comment #35004856
This person is already putting sets inside vectors, so I don't think they are worried about storage. But yes, you either need to stop occasionally and remove the duplicates or use …
-
comment
Comment #35004832
Yes, and eventually you start computing another hash of the buffer of the concatenated members. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just comparing it with recursive memberwise com…
-
comment
Comment #34995154
If you do that 10 times for all members of your struct, do you get good uniformly distributed keys? This post doesn't think so: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5889238/why-is-x…
-
comment
Comment #34995143
This is quite unfortunate. The way to get a really good hash table is by enforcing a bunch of simplifying assumptions (power of 2 sizes, sentinel values, etc). But the C++ committe…
-
comment
Comment #34995113
All of uses ordering operators as well. If you have a "regular" type with proper comparison and assignment operators, it works for everything, container keys, sorting, etc, etc.
-
comment
Comment #34995060
> so hash map will generally be faster in this regard. Complexity is not a measure of runtime. The performance drawbacks for std::map have to do with cache, not O(log) vs O(1). log…
-
comment
Comment #34995012
Do you know about std::unique? Generally sets are a poor tool for removing duplicates.
-
comment
Comment #34995001
Can many hashes be combined quickly in a uniform way? This is another benefit of `<`, it composes.
-
comment
Comment #34994982
You need both access patterns (otherwise you do a double-lookup to insert a default value) and C++ already provides both.
-
comment
Comment #34978820
> developer time is a significantly more expensive resource than compute This also presupposes that making a fast program is a lot more work. However poor performance is usually du…
-
comment
Comment #34830098
My goto build system is: - make - Google's closure compiler (standalone Jar) - imagemagick It builds fast and never goes out of date.
-
comment
Comment #34662179
Did windows 3.1 even have memory separation? So a bad program could crash the whole system?
-
comment
Comment #34660985
So you would say programs today are equally efficient and more stable, just have more features?
-
comment
Comment #34660959
The quantum mechanics is a cop out, since everything observable at the scale of our lives is compatible with a determinism. Only experiments at microscopic level can falsify it. > …
-
comment
Comment #34660881
Usually web applications fork and runs processes to do the computational work you describe (ffmpeg, imagemagick, git, etc). These are usually written in variety of fast(er) languag…
-
comment
Comment #34621475
I agree that risk is about lack of information. So I don't think PG could have been right. He has his view of the market, and other people have theirs. Turns out, he was missing a …
-
comment
Comment #34621440
And that 1 share still outperformed the equivalent amount of S&P.
-
comment
Comment #34621077
Yes, I am doubting that big events in the economy function like dice rolls. When you say it's a tail risk, you're talking as if that outcome is actually realizable.
-
comment
Comment #34621050
I don't see how that's the case. If he had 95% of portfolio in S&P and the FB he bought was 5%, he still did better in dollar terms than 100% S&P.
-
comment
Comment #34620964
You could see they had free cash flow.