> The most important thing is that you weren't "ripped off" - you were taken advantage of. Ripped off is when you buy a TV that's supposed to work and it doesn't. Or you just don't get one.
WPF was atrocious from the beginning and Microsoft absolutely did the right thing by not basing everything in Windows on it.
Every WPF program was laggy and took ages to even start up (is everyone forgetting hard disk speeds?), partly due to it being managed code. The components didn't feel native either, and the coupling to managed code and garbage collection basically ensured all those would be perpetual issues. Yeah the programming model was beautiful and all, but you're supposedly developing to make your customers happy, not to make yourself or computer scientists happy.
You can see how terrible it would've been to base Windows's shell on WPF by looking at how much users have loved the non-Win32 windows since then.
- WinForms applications also took visibly longer to load than Win32. I didn't dread loading them nearly as much as WPF, yes, but I still did. They weren't what I'd call "snappy", but they were... usable enough.
- WinForms also stuttered (in my experience) with the GC. Again, not "snappy" in my experience, but this was more dependent on your use case.
- WinForms were .NET 2.0 rather than .NET 3.0, with fewer modules to load. It certainly felt more lightweight, which from my memory (of how the hard disk behaved) correlated with that.
> It is usually easy to write code that is endian-safe. Any code that is not endian-safe is poorly written and harder to maintain at best, and possibly obscuring security bugs at worst. Any project maintainer should be jumping for joy when they receive a patch adding a big-endian port of their project, especially if it includes reports that tests pass and the software works. That is the sign of a codebase that has a level of sanity that should not be noteworthy, yet is.
And every single sentence is false.
The tower collapses once you remove any of the bases, let alone all of them.
Main issue I have with it is access to testing. It is extra work to be able to test big endian. I don’t want to think about big endian while writing code but it would be ok to do it if I could easily run tests in big endian.
> No, BE is logical because it puts bits and bytes in the same order.
This sounds confused. The "order" of bits is only an artifact of our human notation, not some inherent order. If you look at how an integer is implemented in hardware (say in a register or in combinational logic), you're not going to find the bits being reversed every byte.
> Okay, if you get everyone to write bits the other way I'll endorse LE as intuitive/logical.
You're still confused, unfortunately. (Note: In everything that follows, I'm just pretending "Arabic numerals" came from Arabic. The actual history is more complicated but irrelevant to my point, so let's go with that.)
First, you're confusing intuitive with logical. They are not the same thing. e.g, survivorship bias (look up the whole WWII plane thing) is unintuitive, but extremely logical.
Second, even arguing intuitiveness here doesn't really make sense, because the direction of writing numerals is itself intrinsically arbitrary. If our writing system was such that a million dollars was written as "000,000,1$", suddenly you wouldn't find big-endian any more intuitive.
In fact, if you were an Arabic speaker and your computer was in Arabic (right to left) rather than English (left to right), then your hex editor would display right-to-left on the screen, and you would already find little-endian intuitive!
In other words, the only reason you find this unintuitive is that you speak English, which is (by unfortunate historical luck) written in "big-endian" form! Note that this has nothing to do with being right-to-left but left-to-right, but rather with whether the place values increase or decrease in the same direction as the prose. In Arabic, place values increase in the direction of the prose, which makes little-endian entirely intuitive to an Arabic speaker!
To put it another way, arguing LE is unintuitive is like claiming something being right-handed is somehow more intuitive than left-handed. If that's true, it's because you're used to being right-handed, not because right-handedness itself is somehow genuinely more intuitive. (And neither of these has anything to do with one being more or less logical than the other.)
Until then, I want my bits and bytes notated uniformly.
AFAIK it was only IBM whose CPUs were consistently BE for both bit and byte order (i.e. bit 0 is also the most significant bit.) Every other CPU which is BE for bytes is still LE for bits (bit 0 least significant.)
I believe you're almost entirely wrong unfortunately. It is true that Windows has subsystems as a technical feature, yes. However, I don't think it's true that WSL (v1, let alone v2) was part of that architecture, despite the name. AFAIK that existing subsystem notion was a user-mode one, where each subsystem was built mostly in user-mode on top of the NT ("native") subsystem, with binaries in the PE format. WSL just completely ignored the whole thing, and even the existing notion of processes, and came up with a separate new thing called "picoprocesses" that it (barely?) wired through some critical kernel components via a custom driver that executed Linux binaries intact, implementing the Linux syscalls.
If you want a list of actual subsystems Windows recognizes, this should be pretty accurate:
The real reason for calling it a subsystem was almost entirely for familiarity with the previous concept of running Linux programs on Windows, which were based on that subsystem feature (the POSIX subsystem and the Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications).
That doesn't seem like a contradiction to the idea that "Windows subsystem" is (at least after WSL 1 and especially 2) a description for a functionality (i.e. running binaries targeting a different OS's interfaces), not an implementation.
No, as I explained, that's not what the actual subsystem architecture did. The binaries very much targeted Windows and did not target any other OSes. They weren't (say) ELF files targeting Linux, they were PE files targeting Windows, and you had to compile them from source with special flags to target those subsystems on Windows. You could not run those binaries on other OSes. The compatibility was at the source level, not at the binary level.
>> There is absolutely a Constitution in the UK, it is simply not codified into a single document. <link>
That's got to be the understatement of (many) centuries. AFAIK the UK constitution isn't even even codified into millions of documents, let alone a "single" one. Saying it's not in a "single" document is like saying my trillions of dollars aren't in a "single" bank account. The number of partitions really isn't the problem with that statement here.
Is there a single human (or even computer program) that could even definitively list all the sentences in this "constitution", let alone an arbitrary citizen who needs to be able to become aware of them to be able to follow them? (Note I'm not asking for interpretation, but literally just listing the sentences.) Could they even do this with infinite time? Is it even possible to have an oracle that, given an arbitrary sentence, could indisputably tell you if it is in the constitution?
Maybe that's asking too much. Forget enumerating the laws. Per your own link: "...this enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched."
If this doesn't itself sound silly, hopefully you can at least forgive people for getting irritated at the proposition that there totally exists a "constitution"... that nobody can point to... and that doesn't actually do the one thing many people want from a constitution: being more entrenched than statutes.
> Also of note; even countries with a codified constitution have parts that are uncodified.
Not sure what countries you're referring to, but at least in the US, this is not the case. There is a single document that is the constitution, and (thankfully, so far) nobody is disputing what words are in fact written on that document. And that document absolutely is supreme to statutes.
Interpretation of the words is obviously left to courts in the US, and courts can interpret it differently changing the effective law, but "constitution" is not a synonym for "effective law", and nobody argues over what the words to be interpreted are. And even those interpretations are still written down!
I believe interpretation is a part of the definition of a constitution, you do not, we have different definitions, oh well. I also believe the uncodified/codified distinction is not binary, it is obvious that the US constitution is far more codified than the UK constitution, the two are at opposite extremes.
> I believe interpretation is a part of the definition of a constitution, you do not, we have different definitions, oh well.
You can't just brush it aside as some quibble about definitions. It's a fundamentally substantive difference in the two structures: one of these has an indisputable source of truth (a foundation everyone can witness) that everything else is built on top of
-- however shakily! -- and the other does not. Regardless of whether you include the upper parts of this metaphorical building in your definitions or not, the foundations are not the same.
> It's a fundamentally substantive difference in the two structures
Yes, it is a substantive difference but it does not follow that this difference provides the 'constitution' property.
> one of these has an indisputable source of truth... the foundations are not the same
They are so similar as to be almost the same and if an 'indisputable source of truth' exists anywhere, it is not in the written documents or their structure but unwritten norms and rituals sit beneath both.
What stops a President from simply choosing to ignore a Supreme Court ruling and what prevents the King from returning to personal rule?
The lack of arbitrary rule is a defining feature of both and relies on something that emerged rather than something imposed from without by written words.
> What stops a President from simply choosing to ignore a Supreme Court ruling and what prevents the King from returning to personal rule?
Legally? The fact that everybody under the president -- including those in the military -- understand they are swearing their oath to the constitution -- not the King, not the Crown, not God, not the Supreme Court, not anything else. And that the Supreme Court says what the constitution means. And that if there is a clear and direct contradiction between the Supreme Court and the president, the former trumps (no pun intended) the latter.
Physically? "Nothing", yeah. Same goes for non-presidents. If you can get enough people to follow you (or maybe at least enough of the people with guns) everything else becomes irrelevant, including whether your title was president or King or God or Constitution or whatever.
> The lack of arbitrary rule is a defining feature of both
It is emphatically not. There are lots of countries with constitutions that nevertheless have arbitrary rule. As there are countries without constitutions or arbitrary rule.
> They are so similar as to be almost the same and if an 'indisputable source of truth' exists anywhere, it is not in the written documents or their structure but unwritten norms and rituals sit beneath both.
No, that's exactly what those are not. Unwritten stories, traditions, and rituals are very much disputable. That's kind of the entire point of writing things down, and the point of the game we call Telephone. The indisputable bits are physical artifacts everyone can see with their own eyes.
> And that if there is a clear and direct contradiction between the Supreme Court and the president, the former trumps (no pun intended) the latter.
The extent to which members of the executive branch adhere to their oaths is not written down. Ofc the oath is written and its power may partly derive from its written nature (clear; predictable; well publicised etc) but there is a lot more than its written nature that might cause a general to refuse to follow a Presidential order to arrest all people suspected of voting for their opponent.
> The lack of arbitrary rule... is emphatically not [a defining feature of both]
I guess it depends on whether you (or most reasonable people) would call countries like Russia a 'constitutional republic'. Of course there are plenty of dysfunctional and dictatorial countries which superficially describe themselves as XYZ but it lacks substance.
While there may be a textbook answer, I strongly suspect it is debatable within the field and comes down (like so many things) to how you define your terms. Do you define 'constitutional' as attaching more to the codified and written nature of any rules or whether it is more to do with predictable and enforceable rules limiting arbitrary government. My view is that it attaches more the latter.
If you go into the etymology of the term, I don't think codification is baked in - that you can find a large number of books discussing the English or UK constitution (using that term) is testament to the fact that it's not just some niche view. I do suspect the influence of US popular culture (e.g. Hollywood) has biased the term towards the US' arrangement vs. the alternatives.
> The extent to which members of the executive branch adhere to their oaths is not written down. Ofc the oath is written
So... it is written down...
Notice the president isn't even mentioned. [1] And it even says all enemies, foreign and domestic. The oath is 100% unambiguous and crystal clear that in the event that the president becomes an enemy of the constitution, you defend the constitution, not the president.
> but there is a lot more than its written nature
We're not playing no-true-Scotsman here, right? There are always going to be more factors both in favor and against such a position than any human can enumerate ahead of time. This in no way contradicts anything I wrote.
>>> definition of a constitution
>> The lack of arbitrary rule... is emphatically not [a defining feature]
> I guess it depends on whether you (or most reasonable people) would call countries like Russia a 'constitutional republic'
No, the fact that Russia has a constitution doesn't depend on what I (or most reasonable people) may call Russia or its form of government at all.
> I strongly suspect it is debatable within the field and comes down (like so many things) to how you define your terms.
Russia has a constitution, end of story. There's even a Wikipedia article on it! [2]
If you believe otherwise, just assert "Russia doesn't have a constitution" directly. No need to dive into the debate over whether "Russia is a constitutional republic" when Russia clearly has a constitution. Of course, you're not going to claim it doesn't have a constitution (otherwise you already would've), which... well, I rest my case.
> Do you define 'constitutional' as attaching more to the codified and written nature of any rules
I'm not defining "constitutional" (adjective), whose definition comes in conjunction with the noun following it. I am merely defining "constitution", which is a simple noun. Recall that the sentence I was originally replying to -- word for word -- was: "there is absolutely a Constitution in the UK." Not "the UK is a constitutional <noun>." That's all. The debate is not over anything that involves the <noun> following the word "constitutional". The dispute is over whether the UK has a constitution, and in that debate, it is indisputable that e.g. Russia indeed has a constitution, whether it is well-followed or not, or whether we like it or not.
I think what's becoming pretty clear that people just really desperately want to say the UK has a constitution regardless of how many contortions of the definition of "constitution" that requires, because... well, a constitution is a good thing, the UK sees its form of government as good, so of course it must have a good basis. (Global virtue-signaling, I guess?) Which I find ironic, because a good constitution-less government would be something to be proud of, not something embarrassing to avoid.
If this is hard to wrestle with, consider this: imagine a world where the UK was the same as it is today, but everything else was flipped. i.e. the US & every other country that has a constitution was suffering, and every other monarchy was flourishing. Do you really believe the experts "in the field" would still be arguing the UK has a constitution today, or would they just stick with calling it a monarchy and vehemently deny any constitution existing? It's pretty obvious to me the answer is the latter, but of course, I can't prove anything about an alternate timeline.
Yes, the foundations of the constitutions are not the same, one of them has a mostly codified constitution, the other has a mostly uncodified (uncodified but mostly written down, that is not a contradiction!) constitution. They both have constitutions however, so the phase "Britain has no constitution" is wrong. To be clear, I am not saying that is good or bad that Britain has an uncodified constitution, just that from my definition (and most political and legal definitions) of what a constitution is the phrase "Britain has no constitution" is wrong. Britain of course has laws, and laws about how new laws are made, etcetera. This forms a constitution.
>> Is there a single human (or even computer program) that could even definitively list all the sentences in this "constitution"
> No, it's a living thing. Why is this your sticking point on the existence of a constitution or not?
Do you never write down or sign contracts? Are verbal promises adequate for you in all transactions?
If you don't see the value of laws being written down - especially the most important ones! - I can't really convince you of it here on HN.
But what I can tell is that most people who care about the legitimacy of government believe it is fundamental to fairness that there be a single source of truth that can tell them the laws under which they would be rewarded or punished, before those happen.
I think you have diverged too much...well from reality, in order to try to prove a point. Do you think most people, or lawyers, or judges in the UK spend their time trying to enumerate all the laws of the land before they proceed in their court cases? Do you think that people think that the UK system of government is illegitimate? What point are you trying to make? Because it is not grounded in reality. You can debate the merits of a codified constitution versus an uncodified one, but the UK does have a constitution, the vast majority of which is codified into many documents. The following two links might help you:
> I think you have diverged too much...well from reality
> What point are you trying to make? Because it is not grounded in reality.
Your comment would have been much more valuable without these insults and I would have been much more likely to respond, to point you to where you seemed to be misunderstanding my point. But it seems you're not here for a discussion so let's leave it.
Nobody claimed it's helping or hurting. The debate is over what constitutes a constitution, whether good or bad. There have been great governments without a constitution and terrible governments with one. "You don't have a constitution" does not mean "your government sucks", but it seems somehow people take it as such.
Isn't this the exact kind of scenario where you'd hope someone from above (like, idk, the president) would block the launch?
Not that I expect that to happen, but worth keeping in mind in case something horrible happens. NASA wouldn't be the only one responsible for lost lives.
What I don't get is why the heck are the astronauts willing to risk their lives on something they must know by now is so dangerous? Is it really better to risk death than to risk getting fired?
> why are the astronauts willing to risk their lives
There are a lot of funerals in chapter 1 of Tom Wolfe's book, "The Right Stuff".
I suggest that some choice of profession come with a higher life-risk tolerance than others. "Accountants willing to risk their lives for the job" would be news. Firefighters, less so. Test pilots or astronauts, not much at all.
You're completely ignoring the nature of the risk. It's one thing to accept a risk of death because it's intrinsic to a noble job. It's a whole other thing to accept a totally avoidable risk that's only introduced due to management's self-interests getting in the way.
I agree, to the extent that those two categories are easily and clearly separable and not murky due to the nature of risk, and efforts to pass off one as the other.
This degree of lifespan-maximization is something you might have but others don’t necessarily share. E.g. old people went to Fukushima to sort it out. “Was it really better to risk death than to risk getting fired?”
Neither of these are major risks compared to never being what you want to be.
In that case it seems all right. Certainly if I died in Apollo 1 and I cared about spaceflight and making it to the Moon before the Russians I wouldn’t see it as unworthy.
Because even in the worst case what we are really talking about is just much higher risk than the government is claiming, but its still far more likely to succeed than fail. Plenty of people would take a 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 chance of dying if it meant they could walk on the moon.
To be honest I don't know how close to non-fiction "The Right Stuff" (book or film) was but if you watch it you'd maybe gain an understanding for why astronauts do these things. At least that part is believable.
Some people go to war for the thrill of it, others do base jumping, free solo climbing and whole lot of other activities that eventually kill many of them. It is in their genes.
But that was exactly the point I was responding to, no? If NASA was fine with skipping the astronauts, then they would just send it unmanned, not find a random volunteer.
especially not one that may chicken out ( "very not brave" ) and destroy the cabin from the inside out by any means necessary (bashing at walls, pissing in cracks, etc.)
Pretty sure they used "ripped off" correctly: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rip-o...
reply