I mentioned the +/- zero thing in another comment elsewhere in this tree, actually! So we're all on board there.

It's not really that signless infinity is a contender for 'consensus' inasmuch as number systems which use signless infinity have utilities different from systems that have signed infinities, just like integer math continues to exist despite the 'improvements' of fractions and decimals.

oh fuck me, I realized after i posted my reply you were being sarcastic.

I can make excuses, but I fucked up there, please point at and ridicule me!

How is the fault of men if a lady decides to show her cleavage on a twitch stream? Just because we might want to stare at tits all the time doesn't mean she needs to give in to what we want. Women have choices and one of those choices is how much eye candy she is willing to provide to people around her.

Sure, you might make more money if you show lots of cleavage, but that a society problem of using sex to sell everything. It still comes down to the woman's choice.

The gubbamint puts dihydrogen monoxyde in water to kill you if you drink too much of it! YARALL SHEEPLES DURR HURR!!!

I do not agree with this being the Golden Age of Gaming. With the exception Nintendo, we have console companies that trying to bring PC gaming to the masses, with crappier hardware, questionable controls, a higher price and NO mod ability. Then the PC gets the crappy ports of the console games with the developers shitting on PC users.

I don't even want to get started about the mobile game market. While there are a few gems, it's mostly copy cat crap, and finding the good stuff is like finding a needle in a haystack. On top of that, the in app purchase nags and other ways to get your money blow.

PC side, we got developers that demand DRM, do some crappy Always Online Connection crap, which backfires, but then they keep doing that same thing, fore release after release. PC developers out right lying to their customers, saying something isn't possible when it damn well was. We got MS who says every few years about how they are going to be supporting PC gaming, and then never goes thru with anything.

We've always have Indy Game Developers on the PC, it's just with the last 2 generation of Consoles, all the big developers think they need to do it Hollywood style, big triple AAA titles that have to sell 20 million units to make a profit. And guess what? That hasn't changed much in the last 20 years.

It is not the Golden Age of Gaming.

You mean the phony who shamed the world into forgiving Africa the crippling cold war debts that were foist upon it. The phony who personally persuaded Bill Clinton to dismantle the IRA's Boston based funding? The Irish phony who stood up in Boston and definitely screamed "fuck the revolution" at the IRA leaders and financiers in their home town? I don't know what TS has done to make the world a better place but criticizing Apple is just not in the same league as Bono's "good deeds".

Not only is this about ripping off authors, but it's about Amazon snooping on what you are doing. How will they know you read a page in an ebook unless they have 24/7 access to what you are reading with your ereader/tablet. Does it stop there? Do they start putting IoT in everything they sell? If I buy a toilet plunger, will it be recording what goes on in the bathroom so Amazon knows when to send me toilet paper & diarrhea meds?

Fuck this shit and fuck Amazon for even suggesting it.

Same reply: Python is not fully functional, and so list constructors like that cannot be counted upon to work elegantly in all situations. This is a completely normal thing common to basically every imperative language, and it's just something you have to accept—and write a special-purpose function for.

I think that just means you're a zealot of functional programming; your expectations are wrong. If the language isn't fully functional in nature, don't expect key patterns like map() to work elegantly. They're hacks at best and not really part of the core language design; this is excellent proof of that.

You're just validating your own arbitrary decision to use that integer set. IEEE 754 defines positive and negative infinity separately. (However, if you look at the other comments below this one, you'll see that I argued for exactly this, reassigning the largest negative value to NaN in a signed integer format—but only for select situations.)

The MSO is very popular here in Melbourne, tickets are not cheap and shows are often sold out.

The stories and illustrations are public domain in the US, but copyright laws vary by country.

A vector is... really not an applicable answer, as fun as vectors are! We're only working with one dimension here.

I wasn't thinking of the highest bit, just the highest value. As I'm guessing you already know, because of the nature of two's complement there's an asymmetry in positive and negative numbers (2^15 - 1 positive values, 2^15 negative values, and zero) resulting in one value that could easily be discarded; assigning this single value to an error would have an additional benefit of catching counter overflow. Certain older computers like UNIVACs actually used another system called one's complement, where the most significant bit was a negative sign, and numbers otherwise counted up from zero—this had the odd result of leaving a "negative zero" in the numbering system (which IEEE floating point numbers also have); this could also have been reassigned to NaN.

Yes, I agree that try/catch blocks are annoying from the perspective of people writing elaborate flat code—but they do force the programmer to actually handle errors instead of letting them propagate. In certain contexts this is vitally important. A programming language that permits NaNs is essentially making the decision that the division's failure is Not A Problem by default, which is a key point of contention: are we developing for a safety-critical application where a failure to test properly could have dire consequences? What if someone forgets to check for NaN values in the speed control system in an automobile? Is that better or worse than the program aborting entirely? (Almost certainly worse, as it's more likely there would be management code for catching and fixing that!)

So I would argue that, say, MATLAB or Lisp should support NaNs, but definitely not Ada, and I guess now I'm unsure about the C languages again.