That's true, but Boost already has facilities for that.
That's true, but Boost already has facilities for that.
The key difference between this and interfaces in Java [...]
The primary purpose of an algorithm (or a program, for that matter) is to transform data from one form to another form. Simula-style object orientation, as you find in Java (and in the OO part of C++), associates operations with a single type. This is the least-common and least-useful case, because the interesting parts of programs almost always involve more than one type.
One key thing about the C++ concepts proposal that a lot of people miss is that it many templates have more than one argument. So it's not just a single type we're talking about here, but also associating related types.
So it's not just "adding an interface after the fact". (Although that's a useful feature in itself; how many times have you needed to "decorate" a type from a library whose source code you don't own?) It's bringing the concept of a "class" closer to what that word actually means.
Of course, Haskell's typeclasses are even better.
Two of my three Android devices have custom ROM's, and the third probably will once the LineageOS folks start pushing out reasonably stable builds.
The only reason the third doesn't currently have a custom ROM is that Motorola didn't go batshit with the bloatware, so waiting for the warranty period to up wasn't a pain.
Why would you assume "a bad computer program with a dozen eyes is likely to be better than a bag of meat with only two"?
I'm not up on state of the art on computer image/object recognition but the experience I have from about 10 years ago leads me to believe that there are still challenges to be solved, especially when it comes to recognizing movements and intentions. As a driver, some of the cues I rely on include turning indicators, wheel positions, other driver/pedestrian/cyclist eye contact as well as sounds.
I'm not saying that the challenge of coming up with software that allows a car to autonomously drive itself better than a human isn't possible. I just challenge the assertion that a computer with multiple cameras is likely superior to a human.
Agreed. If I bought a car with a feature called "autopilot", I would think I would be comfortable taking a snooze (or watching a Harry Potter movie) while the car did the driving for me. I am really surprised they haven't dropped the name "autopilot" as it is totally misleading and something that has been pointed out repeatedly. I suspect that there are egos involved in the decision not to change the name.
Or, maybe, they think their software is close enough to achieve certification for totally taking over responsibility for driving the car that they think that can weather this storm and keep the name for the big roll out.
A crash rate of 1.3/ million miles and having 130 million miles of data means that there has been about 170 crashes.
I'm guessing accidents range from minor fender-benders (although with cars of today, a "minor" fender bender costs $2k+) to the fatal accident.
I would like to know where this 40% reduction takes place in the accident spectrum ? Does this mean that there are much fewer fender benders or fewer accidents which resulted in personal injuries?
If it's at the lower end of the range then big whoopdie fucking do - if it results in fewer injuries (and I would guess this would be significantly more than 40%) then it's something to look into and see if this improvement can be brought to other manufacturer's cars (and trucks).
But back to MS: they absolutely are critical and relevant, because everyone's PC runs on their software.
Their problem, though, is that everyone's PC runs on their old software just as well (if not better) than their new software.
What the Windows 10 debacle has shown is that the old stuff is good enough that the only way they can push the new stuff to a reasonable fraction of their users is to essentially force it on them, for free.
At the same time, efforts to diversify into other areas have not been, to put it charitably, as successful as they would have liked.
I'll agree that they're still critical and relevant, but at the same time, they're the least critical and most irrelevant than any other time in the history of the PC.
If you keep making a story for every "A company lied" instance, the front page will be non-stop company lying spam and there will be no news for nerds. Or things that matter.
Yeah, but this is really more of one of those extremely rare "music company screws someone over" stories, which...
Oh. Right. Pardon me. Carry on.
The largest estimate for the size of Psyche is 253 km across. Mars is about 6800 km in diameter, enormously larger.
Forget obscure, old is enough. Copyright should exist as a means of supporting creative works, not a way for large media corporations to sit on something in perpetuity and collect revenue with the only expense being 'investments' in congress to extend copyright.
I'm more than willing to pay for something new because that supports the production of creative works I like enough to give time and money to. Music, movies, books, video games, sure, I will and do buy them. But there's are many things out there that are several decades old and should have fallen into the public domain years ago, and for those I feel no such moral obligation. If the media companies want to avoid piracy, they've got options. I pay for Netflix, I pay for Amazon Prime, there's plenty of options for them to get a piece of the pie even with things that really should be free anyway. If they can't play nice and want to prove just how greedy they are, screw 'em.
You're technically right, but the big factor at the crux of the matter is the if they get in part. Paying the way for 'one of the good ones' doesn't mean there is not still a huge classism problem in these schools.
Not just that, but those with means have much more opportunity to do the exceptional things so-called elite colleges are looking for. Feeder schools with high rates of getting pupils into elite schools are a thing for a reason. An average kid with means is still much more likely to have an outstanding resume than an exceptional one student from a more modest background.
Apologists will say admissions at these places are money blind, but the reality is they just use proxies. It's the class equivalent of saying 'I'm not racist, but I won't hire people with funny names like Jose, Latasha, or Ahmed.'
The old saying 'Elite schools are where the wealthy launder privilege into credentials' once again holds true, and still no one cares. No one is holding them accountable for their classism. Point it out and some asshole accuses you of 'class warfare.' Far as I'm concerned, their should be an academic boycott of these places until conditions improve. It is baffling to me that, for all the progressives in academia, no one wants to touch this subject.
In their defence, I suspect they had to test the hell out of it to make sure a wide variety of applications, browsers, message clients, wikis, etc wouldn't shit the bed when they tried to parse a URI like moz://a in a chunk of text.
At least, I hope they tested the hell out of it.
I've not spent a lot of time in Japan but on future trips I will have a little nostalgia remembering coming in after a long night of Karaoke and trying to figure out how to relieve myself without flooding the bathroom.
Of course, that option is a lot better than the ubiquitous hole in the floor with a shell that you squat over that my wife always wondered why I took pictures of.
Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.