Use the same one. Report every single Conservative Party web site (including candidate web sites in the run up to the next election) as inappropriate content. If enough people do it then some are bound to accidentally slip in to the censor list...

So now it's a high-skill, high-stress job that's earning $26.89/hour (above the living wage in Manhattan, but not by much)?

I don't remember being asked to show ID on checking into a hotel anywhere in Europe. In the US, however, credit card and photo ID are the first things that they ask for at every checkin desk at every hotel I've stayed at (about a dozen over the last couple of years, in quite a few states).

And states should be allowed to legalise slavery. Because that worked so well the last time.

Most of that is microcoded. There's no benefit in removing most of the 32-bit stuff, because it's exactly the same in 64-bit mode. Things like segments are microcoded and if you have a non-zero base you hit a really slow microcoded path on Intel's low-power CPUs.

How about because they're not open sourcing any of the client side bits?

First, to know that it actually is a compiler bug. You can spend days debugging your code and failing to find the error if you regard your compiler as infallible. Second, because you want it to actually be fixed. There are a few thousand bugs open in LLVM and GCC. If you want yours to be fixed, then you need the people doing bug triage to be able to work out who to assign it to. A simple reduced test case and an explanation of exactly what the compiler is doing wrong means that it is likely to be fixed the same day that it's filed. Without that... come back in a year and we might have fixed it if someone better at writing bug reports than you has filed a duplicate.

Yup. Unfortunately, the people in the idiots camp seem to be trying to make it all about them.

In the non-idiots group.

I spend most of my time fixing compiler bugs (when I'm lucky, I get to add new compiler features), so perhaps I'm slightly biased about compiler code quality. Most recently, I was working on an error in LLVM where functions with more than 8 integer / pointer arguments were mangled on big-endian MIPS (if they were smaller than register size), because they were spilled to the stack in the little-endian position. If you encountered this as a programmer and weren't able to look at the function call and prologue, then you'd have absolutely no idea why your code was doing seemingly random things.

The original post isn't talking about getting rid of the abusers though. It's talking about boycotting Slashdot because some ACs are trolls.

Nope, that doesn't meet the definition of being a misogynist in the slightest. If they were being incredible abusive and awful to women simply because they were women, then that would meet the definition of being a misogynist. If they are being awful to people for having an opinion, then they are jerks.

The real problem with this entire issue is the people who try to frame it as misogynistic men against oppressed women and not antisocial idiots against sensible people.

There are a few questions to ask about this sort of teaching:

• Can you understand what the machine is doing?
• Can you get the same answer as the machine?
• Can you get the answers faster than the machine?

In the case of simple arithmetic, if you include the time of getting the phone out of your pocket, then the answer should be yes to all of them - it's just useful. The education system (in the UK, at least) unfortunately tries to take the same approach for things like calculus. You can understand how to solve differential equations (although more by applying rote-learned rules than really understanding what's going on), and that's useful. After a year of practicing, you may take 10 minutes instead of 30 to solve some complex equations, but the computer will take under a second, so was it really worth spending that year practicing?

The same is true for most automated tools. There's no benefit in writing your own, but there's a big benefit in being able to write your own. Or in writing your own and then understanding why it's not as good as the one that loads of other people have been working on for years...

I'm fully supportive of the idea that programmers shouldn't write assembly. I'm a lot more hesitant about a programmer who never reads assembly. Compilers do odd things. Sometimes they do clever odd things, sometimes they do stupid odd things. And sometimes they just contain bugs.

The grandparent's sorting a list is actually a pretty good example. There are lots of library sort implementations that do a reasonable job over arbitrary data but you can often do a lot better with some knowledge about the data that you're sorting. If you know that you have a roughly even distribution between n ranges and it's cheap to test which of those n ranges your data are in, then you can do a (linear time) bucket sort and then use the off-the-shelf comparison sort to do n sub-sorts in parallel. The generic sorting code can't do this, because it doesn't have enough information: it just has a comparison operator defined on the data. If you understand the underlying concepts then you should know when you can beat a generic implementation with a domain-specific one. If you've had a bit of experience then you should know when it's not worth bothering.

I disagree. Automation has definitely made a lot of things easier, but it's been offset by an increase in requirements. Autocomplete for APIs, for example, popping up a snippet of documentation when you're typing is essential on some of the APIs I work with today, with hundreds of classes each of which have dozens of methods - remembering the exact name of the one that you might use once a year is impossible (especially when it's code that Google people work on and so randomly do bulk refactoring runs renaming methods to fit some private aesthetic every month). When I started programming, the entire set of APIs I had to work with fitted into a quite small book and it was easy to memorise the whole thing.