I’m picturing something like Slenderman arriving and dragging me off to the land of model failures forever.

Because if not, I feel like this could get the team in legal or at least financial hot water with investors.

Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, just that it’s not normal and okay.

It definitely is.

OP worries about being replaced “like the programmers of old”.

I’m pretty sure this is set in the future.

Interesting how Wikipedia handles slashes in the title.

Good to know! Although I have to wonder if that’s true for programs more recently set up as well. That was >40 years ago.

Ah, so it dovetails with the whole “children get a name reasonably fast” thing. I was interpreting that as “ever, in a natural lifespan”. My bad, haha.

I suppose a counterexample to that might be cultures which do not use script in general. Then, obviously, there’s no Unicode characters for these non-existant glyphs.

True, but there’s little risk of a name being entered into a form without some kind of transcription.

It’s true. Who’s Jenny, for the zoomers in the chat?

Is there not a “falsehoods programmers think about phone numbers” yet?

Edit: And once again, I’m still confused about some of these. Do we need to expand unicode for names? It’s supposed to be universal. WTF is up with 40?

I’ve heard they can be spotty, although I’m personally sighted. That’s usually the reason people post transcripts, anyway.

I mean, there are blind users.

Yeah, that’s not actually a good reason though, unless you’re developing a Hebrew programming language for Hebrew speakers. I made a bit of a joke about it, yes.

Absolutely cursed, lol.

So not only did they decide to randomly include Hebrew in their language, because I guess they were feeling kabbalistic, but they got the Hebrew wrong. In what way does any of that increase usability or even make them look competent?

It reminds me of the INTERCAL manual, which was a joke:

This precedence (or lack thereof) may be overruled by grouping expressions between pairs of sparks (’) or rabbit-ears (").

Yes, it would be simpler.

We all remember there’s a tradeoff though, right?

Edit: oops, guess I was mistaken, you can use most Unicode but emojis are not valid.

That actually seems even more arbitrary. Like, do they just hate fun?

PHP naming “::” a Paamayim Nekudotayim is also pretty infamous.

When I’m designing shit, I’m pretty zealous about borrowing terminology from anything even vaguely related to avoid this.

Nix is cool. My next daily driver is probably going to be Qubes, which goes in a whole other direction. I bet you can run Nix within Qubes, though.

Guix and it’s accompanying system are interesting to me for basically being Nix with Portage-style user compilation. The system is also GNU Hurd compatible and has a different approach to organising files, among other things.

Lol, good to know the guys with souped up shitty cars have been around since the early internet.

Now I’m super curious about Gentoo and Portage. You don’t hear so much about compiling your own stuff anymore (probably because there’s less architectures around).

Hash functions aren’t “impenetrable” they’re just math.

I mean, they’re both. At a high level it’s math, but the individual operations are carefully designed to resist any symbolic manipulation (aka thought) - because that’s one step away from an attack.

The point of this post is actually things like x[(I-3)&0x0f]. It’s entirely the same concept as coercion to manipulate index values this way. What’s funny is that void pointer math, function pointer math, void pointers and function pointers in general are typically seen as “beyond the pale” for whatever reason.

If it compiles pretty directly to register pointer math that way, I think it could be justified here. I can’t say if it does, or if an alternate approach would too, though.

This portion is simply an manually unrolled loop

Lol, I didn’t notice it’s a perfect shift. Yeah, that could theoretically be done better. Presumably the justification is because it’s a leaf function, and it’s hard to guarantee every compilation will unroll it properly.

(lmao these gcc nerds haven’t even heard of Gentoo)

The flag -O3 exists. Or just -funroll-loops. You shouldn’t even need -funroll-all-loops in this case, since hashes have a fixed size.

I sound way more competent with the flags than I am here, haha. Does Gentoo use an alternate compiler by default?

Beyond that asking what the memory size of a variable in C is a fools errand because the real answer is “it depends” and “it also depends if someone decided to ignore what it typically depends on (compiler and platform) with some preprocessor fun”.

As I understand it, that’s pretty unavoidable if you want C to both compile onto multiple processors and work at a high level the same way on all of them. JavaScript catches shit for doing funny things purely because it was hastily built.

Ditto for fast inverse square root. It’s absolutely cursed, but when you’re at a certain low level you can’t afford pretty anymore. You’re feeling the constraint of limited die space and manufacturing steps not too far down the layers of abstraction. Browser scripting, on the other hand, is not low-level.

Incredibly based.

sha1.c

Yeah, a hash function actually just looks like that intrinsically, though. Being impenetrable is the point.