Generally not. PLCs are designed to be as reliable and fault tolerant as possible, so they don't allow recursion (along with a bunch of other things, like direct memory access with pointers[1]) since it's so easy to accidentally make something either take a really long time, or fail to terminate. You can fake it by piping an output into a variable which is also used as an input, but this makes it explicit that the last value is used then the next value stored, rather than multiple steps of recursion happening in one scan.
Generally the kind of software you develop in structured text doesn't need recursion anyway.
If this was their one true message all along, they were very clever about disguising it among all the other noise they generated (which is my point about them thoroughly discrediting themselves). It is convenient that each time their latest message is disproven, proponents say "that was never their true message, it was really about X!" And then X gets disproven and we move onto Y.
Do you have an example? This seems like dogwhistling without a concrete understanding of what you think their "latest message" is. Unless that latest message is, literally, the phrase "Black Lives Matter", which can easily stand on its own, it's difficult to see what issues you have with them.
I gave several examples, what are you looking for? Anyway, why would I be dogwhistling, and to whom? Is that supposed to be some thinly-veiled, unfalsifiable insinuation that I'm part of the alt-right? Because that's the only context I've read it in.
If you're not posting under your confirmed real name, in a facebook group under the control of the private university, there's probably nothing they can do.
I saw this firsthand with a former flatmate of mine. He passionately studied Semitic languages and Persian at uni, spent a lot of time traveling or studying abroad in Israel, Arab countries, and Iran. His social circle in Europe was heavy with immigrants from those countries and with them he seemed to be the best of friends. And yet he loved to visit 4chan and collect anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim memes to repost elsewhere just for the lols. Deciding if a person is "really racist" or not has become a challenge in our age.
Why do we need to decide if someone is "really racist" in the first place? To make ourselves feel good about being morally superior? To feel offended on behalf of people who we may not even understand?
Political correctness really has gotten out of hand, and the sooner people realize this, the sooner they'll begin to understand how we ended up with Trump as president.
The pendulum swings both ways. Be careful how hard you push it.
I think it’s entirely normal that if you have a friend who expresses two completely opposite sentiments, you wonder which of them he/she really espouses. It has nothing to do with feeling good or superior.
Trump is also politically correct, just not the kind we're used to. He didn't say anything about the Portland knife attack and had a lot to say about the London one. Doing so kept his base happy.
Don't be fooled into thinking Trump is not a politician.
But making that shit turn up everywhere just normalizes it. People start seeing those things and agreeing with them, no matter how "ironically" he intending them to be taken.
Ideas like "let's get Donald Trump elected for the lulz" have real-world effects. "It was just for laughs, mate" isn't really a good excuse. At a certain point, it approaches "watching the world burn" territory.
I'm not making a claim either way on the idea that Donald Trump was "meme'd into office" as has been claimed elsewhere.
My statement is that attempting to get someone elected president just because it would be "funny" to see that person as President has real-world consequences. At some point these things go beyond being "just a prank" regardless of how effective they are at actually accomplishing their goal. Were they to actually accomplish their goal, it would have real-world consequences beyond just providing more fuel for their image board meme battles.
There's a pretty wide spectrum between "do whatever you want" and "let's implement thought-crime." I don't understand how me saying that something is a bad idea for anyone to do somehow becomes "policing" what other people are thinking. Could you please explain that to me?
From a quick google search, it appears 20,000 of Google's 60,000 or so employees are headquartered in Mountain View, and it is widely considered the company's "headquarters." I'm not sure it's apt to think of it as an exception. And it's in the process of being rebuilt, which can be understood as a doubling down on this approach.
Perhaps. However, calichoochoo implied this at least true of one more office, as it "continues to make the wrong large decisions by putting their offices in the middle of nowhere, miles from any real place, surrounded by acres of parking". This seems to only apply to mountain view.
FWIW I agree; I can't think of a place I'd like to work less than the bay area. There's no good option for living there, let alone commuting.
So it's better to pull an Apple and completely cannibalize a city by building a giant spaceship in the middle?
For smaller offices it makes sense to have them in the middle of the city, for something as large as their Mountain View office, it'd be a huge mess inside a city for someone of that scale.
And you're forgetting the fact that the headquarter has been growing naturally over the years, so if they had indeed started in a city, they would've probably had a really hard time expanding.
The practicalities of bare metal programming means that a lot of the time an individual work item has to jump contexts (ie. stacks and register sets) in a way that doesn't map cleanly to C++ style exceptions.
Such over-engineering does not smack of interesting material for a site called "hacker news". This is great material in itself, especially considering the context of education here.
Oh, advancement through self-education? There's practically zero pedagogic content on HN. Or in this submission! How did the father guide his daughter? Through examples & showing a restricted subset of the problem? By following the technique in How to Solve It & steadfast avoiding showing the student anything but patiently & gently reminding them of what they know & which skill to apply in each circumstance?
As someone not familiar with this, why not? Can't you just draw a line from output to input?