Thanks indeed I misunderstood the problem

I misunderstood the problem. I thought the thieve came on bike to steal something. I did not get that the bike itself was what got stolen.

I do not get why it would work in that case. I assume the scenario is someone with a bike coming, doing theft, then leaving with the same bike.

Therefore there will be a period without bike, then a period with bike, then a period without bike again.

Let’s assume there is no bike on the particular moment viewed. How do you know whether it occured before or after the theft? If you make the wrong decision, you get stuck on an endless binary search… Unless you take note at each timestamp where you made the decision, draw a tree of timestamps, and go back the tree if your search is fruitless but that’s much more complicated than what this post says.

On the world’s roads last year, there were over 20 million electric vehicles and 1.3 million commercial EVs such as buses, delivery vans, and trucks.

But these numbers of four or more wheel vehicles are wholly eclipsed by two- and three-wheelers. There were over 280 million electric mopeds, scooters, motorcycles, and three-wheelers on the road last year

There are about 20x more e-bikes than electric cars. Of course its going to demand more oil.

The real question is what is best in terms of oil demand between electric cars and e-bikes

There are techniques like abstract interpretation that can deduce lower and upper bounds that a value can take. I know there is an analysis in LLVM called ValueAnalysis that does that too - the compiler can use it to help dead code elimination (deducing that a given branch will never be taken because the value will never satisfy the condition so you can get rid of the branch).

But I think these techniques do not work in all use cases. Although you could theoretically invent some syntax to say “I would like this value to be in that range”, the compiler would not be able to tell in all cases whether it’s satisfied.

If you are interested in a language that has subrange checks at runtime, Ada language can do that. But it does come at a performance cost - if your program is compute bound it can be a problem

Why would you have to choose between tests and compiler checks? You can have both. The more you have the less chance of finding bugs.

I would also add that tests cannot possibly be exhaustive. I am thinking in particular of concurrency problems - even with fuzzing you can still come across special cases where it goes wrong because you forgot a mutex somewhere. Extra static checks are complementary to tests.

I think you can write “unsafe” code in Rust that bypass most of the extra checks so you do have the flexibility if you really need it.

Do you happen to know where those json files are located? I have been looking for those

I love that software. It’s so simple - no need for much clicking you can do a lot with just the keyboard.

I love particularly how there is no bloatness. Creating a new task is as simple as pressing ctrl+a (or shift+a), typing the name and pressing enter. Creating a subtask is just pressing ‘a’ on the task and type the name.

There is jira integration so I can import my jira tickets and make my own local subdivision in smaller tasks that do not need to be thoroughly described or shared. The status of the jira tickets can be updated from the app directly

There is a pomodoro plugin that works well minor some bugs (don’t ever choose “close” when prompted to skip the break or go back to work)

Wonder what did I do last week for writing a summary? Just look at the history in the app

I really love it and can only recommend it for personal planning

Yes, getting into a new project is hard. Even when you do know the languages and frameworks it’s still hard because you have to get into the mini ecosystem that the developers of that project built. In companies there is usually an expected amount of time (days? weeks? Months? Varies on the project) where a new developer is not really expected to do anything major, just getting used to the project.

I do not know if you are professional or hobbyist. But coding takes a lot of time, a lot of it is spent on just figuring out how you will code this or that feature ; then another bunch of time is spent debugging ; and finally, yet another bunch of time is spent integrating your new feature. That’s why it’s a whole job, and that’s also why you need a ton of free time to do this as a hobbyist.

But the good news is that once you spent that upfront time to get into the project, you can code more efficiently (that is, get right to the features you want to make) and you will also spend a little bit less time getting into other projects because although projects are different, there is always some level of organization that remains similar. The more advanced you become, the quicker you can get into a “production” state where you can code right away thanks to spending less time figuring out how things work.

Oh, it most definitely is scummy. It’s no news that Tinder does not care about people well-beings. Actually, they want you to get stuck to the platform as long as you can; if everyone was finding their partner after a week their platform would not be profitable anymore.

On Tinder it would not be in the same context that what you experienced. In OKCupid it’s part of the rules that you can send messages without a match. So people are OK (I guess) with it. On Tinder it’s going to come as unexpected and unwelcome. You will start with a disadvantage. Unless the woman is only interested in money (if you can spend $500/month on an app then you are probably among the wealthier half of the population).

Those are profit driven. If they can cut cost they will. They just want the minimal effort to get customers. Also usually their app has such marketing and notoriety that most people don’t really care about changelogs.

Even if the commit message is concise, there is a difference between what the patch does on a technical level and what the end user will see as a result.

IMO the solution is to link each commit to an issue or a ticket - some high-level description of the feature the commit implements - but there still has to be someone who makes the effort of making sure each commit is linked to a ticket and who nags the devs when they forget to do so…

I would say it is this way because it takes a big effort to crunch all the patches that have been made thus far and make an easy-to-read summary out of them.

It’s not something that comes for free. You need someone on the job.

I would also add that maintaining a fork means either missing out on the new features from the fork or have a lot of trouble rebasing every now and then (the more the fork is different from upstream, the higher the cost of rebasing)

I’m yet to find a single field where most tasks couldn’t be replaced by an AI

Critical-application development. For example, developing a program that drives a rocket or an airplane.

You can have an AI write some code. But good luck proving that the code meets all the safety criteria.