It's all about jokes, funny pics...

I don't know which is funnier:
  • the profile wording of Mrs Potaoes Exposed
  • the fact that it's not necessary to spell-check the word Promse before writing authoritatively about The Promse of Science.
View attachment 12887



If it's too warped: sorry.

If I had not deleted my Twitter account: I'd follow Mrs P.E. and vigorously defend her right to not have her children exposed to the risks of potatoes, risks that are documented in more than fifty scientific published articles.
That is how you expose a pretender from the real McCoy. The real McCoy would have more substance than 0's and 1 backing their output. 😔
 
bas4vdgiigg81.jpg
 
Minus sex not good! :)

Code:
$ python3
Python 3.8.12 (default, Jan  2 2022, 01:12:07) 
[Clang 11.0.1 (git@github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git llvmorg-11.0.1-0-g43ff75f2c on
freebsd13
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.

>>> a = -5
>>> b = -5

>>> a is b
True

>>> a = -6
>>> b = -6

>>> a is b
False
 
The "is" operator is not "==". It compares the object id instead. But it is "funny" that the asssignment of -5 matches the human expectation and -6 does not. With one of the next releases it might be totally different instead. Python is full of surprises.
 
The "is" operator is not "==". It compares the object id instead. But it is "funny" that the asssignment of -5 matches the human expectation and -6 does not. With one of the next releases it might be totally different instead. Python is full of surprises.
A lot of things in regards to python are funny and/or downright ridicoulus.
What's not funny is the fact that it is so widely used.
 
Only found out accidentally about it this morning (thanks to "antae").

The weird fact is that I checked for the range, and the integers between -5 to 256 inclusive are interned. 256 is 2^8 but still not really OK, however, -5 seems completely arbitrary. The only explanation I could imagine was Valentine's Day related. :)

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13650293/understanding-pythons-is-operator
Python is allowed to automatically intern any immutable types, but not required to do so. Different implementations will intern different values.

CPython (the implementation you're using if you don't know which implementation you're using) auto-interns small integers and some special singletons like False, but not strings (or large integers, or small tuples, or anything else).

Just tried moments ago in a Windows XP 32bits laptop with Python 2.7.9 from 2014, and it does the same.
 
The "is" operator is not "==". It compares the object id instead. But it is "funny" that the asssignment of -5 matches the human expectation and -6 does not. With one of the next releases it might be totally different instead. Python is full of surprises.
At least they didn't do the "===" thing from Javascript. Apologies if this has been posted before:
 
Who programmed in "older" languages knows that = does not mean "equal" but "copy the value from the right to the adress of the left."
Because of copying values is way more often needed than comparisons the developers of most programming languages willfully implemented this "small error" to save typing effort. Pascal, originally found by a swiss professor ment to be as a teaching language and therefore being correctly had := for allocation and a single = really ment comparison.
As a result almost everybody who learned programming with Pascal and later started programming in C was really confused 😁

To make a bad joke I just made up in XML that would read kind like this:

Code:
<allocate>
<title: x=x+1>
    <begin allocation>
        <start allocation of x>
            <x>, <x>, <1>
                <(calculate)>
                    <x:=x+1>
                        <x><=><:><(><x><)><+><(><1><)></>
                    </x:=x+1>
                <(end_calculate)>
            </x>, </x>, </1>
        </end allocation_of_x>
    </end allocation>
</allocate>

I really hate XML! It's all what in 70 years of development a programming language must not do.
Or, as Linus put it:
“XML is crap. Really. There are no excuses. XML is nasty to parse for humans, and it’s a disaster to parse even for computers. There’s just no reason for that horrible crap to exist.”
– Linus Torvalds, 2014)
100% agreement. Anybody putting config-files, especialy on a POSIX-System in form of xml misses the fundamental point of programming completely.


To make it up a bit again I'm telling a joke (even if this one has a beard) that may be actually funny:

Why C++ is like teenage sex?

- It is on everyone's mind all the time.
- Everyone talks about it all the time.
- Almost no one is really doing it.
- The few are doing it:
- doing it poorly
- sure it will be better next time
- not practicing it safely
 
Why C++ is like teenage sex?

- It is on everyone's mind all the time.
I thought that was Java.
- Everyone talks about it all the time.
Hello, Python!
- Almost no one is really doing it.
GNOME and KDE are pretty prominent examples.
- The few are doing it:
- doing it poorly
- sure it will be better next time
- not practicing it safely
Java was supposed to be a memory-safe alternative. Rust is supposed to be type-safe. Python is supposed to enforce scoping. Ruby on Rails, Haskell, etc. are also trying to jump on the bandwagon of fixing what's wrong with C++, and end up reinventing the wheel in the process. You want better C++? try brainfuck (I picked that up in another thread: , on page 2) :p
 
Yeah, I know bf.

I teached myself Assembler a couple of years ago (8bit MCUs). And I learned much about programming, such as some things on the higher languages I formerly programmed with only I did not actually understand completely. Because that's nothing you can learn by a language itself but it could be very helpful if one knows it. Classical example is to really understand floating point on binary level. One does not have to learn Assembler for that, of course, but understand floating point may prevent some funny surprises.
What I wanted to say what I learned, what I experienced, was what higher programming languages are all about:
Not only giving the programmer a toolbox of pre-made operations and control structures but data types.
That's what everbody knows, who programs.
But having this experienced by doing some programming effort on lowest level, makes you really understand why - and further points:
Every higher programming language - if not being kind of an experimental joke like bf - is to make things easier.
Easier is realized by leaving out and limitations.
So it's a law of nature that every language is specialized.
The more distance you want to have from Assembler the more specialized a language becomes, the more its use is narrowed plus other limitations. And vice versa, the more general, flexible and adaptive a langauge should be, the closer you get to Assembler again.
C is the very first and smallest step from machine to a higher language. Who does not know Assembler will not see it. But since I've learned it, it's obvious to me.

But this I also learned means - now I get to my point - one has to chose the right language for each purpose.
But that's not always done, since in many companies there often is one language to do everything, and not few programmers only know one, or two languages and not seldom refuse to learn another one.
And by mutual proving thus results in more and less popular languages instead of using the right one.
And that's what the joke originally was coming from.

I admit:
The joke is from the late 1990s, when C++ starts to become popular, not actually was a real systems language yet and Java was still in a very early development state - if even existed (I'm not in Java), because there were times when Webpages consisted of HTML only... (Those were the days of information via www, not craptainment - at least if the page was not written by someone just started on learning HTML and because of being surprised what all can be done with it also did it all 😅

Since the last 25 years three things of the internet haven't changed:
1. Knowing technically how to produce a Website does not necessarily means how to design it well.
Current trend is since nobody reads no text anymore most text is outrages cattle fieces, optical trappings really, to simulate content.
At least more and more designers put the wanted link-buttons again on the top of a site, so I don't wish for a motor driven scrollwheel no more 🤪
2. The time a webpage needs to load is constant, because all improvement of tranferspeed is eaten up by more crap to be transferred. 😁
3. With each new version each website becomes worse. 🤪
 
2022-03-03 02-18-33 horned.png1646275527062.png

After following a link out from discussion of hier(4) and related history, I mistook the image on the left as a badly cropped version of the FreeBSD Project logo icon.

… just because the deadline has ended, doesn't mean that we won't still accept good proposals. …

Is it too late for me to propose Foundation-funded new spectacles? 👓
 
Pretty dark humor here, and a pretty far-flung connection to make. The real reason for the cookie design has more to do with chemical properties of the cookie dough - perforating the dough like that allows for a more even bake. :) Long live food science, it's what top chefs at Michelin 5-star restaurants know.
 
Top