I'm much older and use links (similar to lynx but with tables) in text-mode as my main browser. Occasionally I'll have to load something graphic for java[script]/... which is otherwise detestable and to be avoided.

So I have a simple script that dumps a list of URLs into a text file (~100kB). Then `diff` on an earlier version give a few pages of interesting changes. Done and not dependant only YAP (yet another protocol, RSS).

At first I thought it would be some form of BFS, but it's really simple, cause if you have a matrix, where you want to see if all the numbers pair up, and each can pair with any other eligible, it doesn't matter which cells pair together.

They don't ask if the puzzle is solvable but it seems like this should be solvable in O(n) time if the sum of all elements is the same as the sum of foreach(10-element).

e.g.

1 2
1 2

= 6

9 8
9 8

= 34

1 2
9 8

= 20

4 4
2 0

= 10

6 6
8 10
= 30

References are not pointers, they CAN be implemented using a memory pointer (into raw memory) or as an offset into a base memory block, and they can also be reference counted or not. References are in general much SAFER than pointers, as they can actually check if the thing they are referencing still exists.

Pointers are just a number, with no guarantees that that number refers to memory which is even still allocated to the process.
Pointers can be incremented while references cannot.

When you de-reference a pointer, the memory there may have been corrupted by another part of your process, while references (assuming you are only using references in most languages all bets are off with unsafe access in rust for example) have the guarantee that the memory you are accessing is not corrupt.

Since pointers are just a number, they are faster to use cause you don't need to do any extra checks at runtime to ensure they are valid.

Java for example has multiple types of References (normal 'Hard' references, soft, weak and phantom). C++ has 'smart pointers' which are a weaker version of references and I think that the many half-way implementation of references that are really just pointers with weak guarantees of safety have muddled the definition. Same goes for objC style ARC references, they are a very good implementation of a pointer with reference features but even Apple changed that when they moved to swift, even if the main way to interact with them (Reference Counting) is the same.

While at the core concept, they both refer to memory, they are very different. References simply have more features everywhere they are implemented (Java, JavaScript, Go, C#, etc.)

PHBs have a reputation for stupidity, often well deserved.

AI promises to do all the grunt work, so it has the potential to make everyone into little more than a PHB.

OK, give them all one of those travel bikes that folds up into a suitcase. That way nobody would have the advantage of a good fit.

What I would do: Have the race sponsors dole out randomly selected identical bikes to each competitor just before the race. They could even use crappy Huffy bikes as long as they're all the same.

That would kill two birds with one stone: Making sure that there's no cheating, and eliminating the ridiculous obsession the cycling world has with trying to create bikes that weigh only a few grams. As a bonus, the best *athlete* would probably win.

The bad news: Hackers have gained access to thousands of SharePoint servers.

The good news: It will be of no use to them, because just like the befuddled employees who are stuck using SharePoint, the hackers won't be able to find any relevant information in the byzantine hierarchy of pseudo folders packed with stale artifacts.

Grifters every last one of them man. That game is some serious dog shit too. I feel bad if they had to vibe code it is as it seems like something that could easily be cobbled together from any number of free sample games in a few hours at most.

I had forgotten that people were still trying to use NFTs to scam people out of money by making you pay for jpgs. That is so 2010s.

Yeah, I'd be surprised if they don't have a bunch of A/B tests running all the time to try and determine which icons/gameplay/mechanics are the most addictive and drive more users to the games. They just want you to pump your time and money into them.

deep in this article is a reminder that this is Microsoft which is driving this AI madness. King, purchased by Activision-Blizzard, then Microsoft as part of the consolidation. This is driving completely by MS and their AI push to automate all the things with AI.

Personally I have no love for King's games they are all clones of some other game IMO. I'm not actually aware of their current level of lootbox/gambling type mechanics but that was my impression of their games.

We definitely have reached the stage where companies are banking on AI instead of outsourcing to fulfill their need for labor.

Hope that all of these people can find their feet quickly.

Everyone pile into the trades just in time for the next cyclic construction industry bust.

Here's another small tweak: Fold the line back on itself to form a grid!

That way, you can ditch the whole train thing and just walk to all of your destinations. Plus, you get an urban plan that has been proven workable since the days of ancient Mesopotamia.

Materials to build Henry Ford's first factory were delivered by horse-drawn carts.

Your formula is a just a low-speed approximation of the actual formula for kinetic energy, and it is not accurate at relativistic speeds. In the actual relativistic formula, the amount of energy increases towards infinity as the mass approaches the speed of light.

"Sir, we need to know how fast the earth spins so we can aim our missiles."

Very well then. Carry on, ensign.