I've always been fascinated by the dissonance between what some people insist they need from an off the shelf system (bulletproof with a dedicated security team because Security is Hard, rock solid reliability because I depend on it 24/7) and what they will accept in a DIY solution (completely unsecured un-audited software with no tests and something broken every other day).
I'd politely suggest that if your hearing is bad enough to be noticeable, then it is definitely enough to look into getting hearing aids. Hearing aids for those with only mild hearing loss can be very discreet.
There is evidence to suggest that living with even mild hearing impairment can accelerate cognitive decline (though I don't know if there is yet evidence that this can be prevented by using hearing aids).
> Believe it or not, places outside the US did do a 'real lockdown' for a lot longer than a month, and it didn't 'solve' covid.
If other countries harbour the virus then that won't eradicate it (and the countries with lockdowns will re-import it at some point).
As I indicated to dfbsdfbwe2ef2e, I think at this point in history it's really more interesting to get precise data, modelling. Not just to understand what could or could not have been done in the case of COVID-19, but also for the future, the next pandemic (or OK, even still COVID-19, if you're worried about the renewed rise), so that people will have a better foundation to discuss what the best path forward is.
Bickering about some imprecisely passed-around details doesn't seem to have any benefit at this point.
This virus can also live in and be transmitted by animals.
You going to lock down all the wild animals in the environment too?
Lockdowns have zero chances of working and were dumb from day one. We got played by China - voluntarily kneecapped our economies after falling for the political theater they put on for us welding apartments shut and all that.
I find it fascinating that so few still seem to ignore that they shut down internal travel but still allowed travel outside their country. Nothing suspicious in that at all.
> Lockdowns have zero chances of working and were dumb from day one. We got played by China
"Bickering about some imprecisely passed-around details doesn't seem to have any benefit at this point."
I mean, maybe there was an effect as you say, and then just maybe that was done by them on purpose, but then the interesting bit would be to prove the hypothesis as well as you can. It would be better if even you at least said "I find this suspicious", over leaving it to the reader to feel like he has to agree or something. This kind of talking is heating up a discussion, for what benefit?
Even Deborah Birx admits in her book that two weeks to slow the spread was a ruse:
>Birx writes “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of the two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it.”
It really depends how you measure productivity. Does it make the team close their JIRA tickets faster and pump out more lines of code? Probably. But I wouldn't be surprised if it also resulted in more defects, worse designs, more tech debt, and more failed projects.
Sometimes the best thing you can do is stop someone from writing code.
I hate this idiom every time I come across it. I like to look at the header file to see the interface and important documentation, and this just obscures it. Depending on your compiler it can make debugging a huge pain as well.
> I like to look at the header file to see the interface and important documentation
This still works nicely: the important stuff (documentation and public interface) is at the top, followed by the 'unimportant' implementation at the botton of the file.
STB-style headers are a bit different from typical C++ 'single header libraries' in that they put the declaration and implementation into separate sections in the header file (with the implementation inside an #ifdef/#endif pair), while C++ headers are usually a wild mix of class declarations intermixed with implementation code in template and inline functions (which is indeed harder to read).
I don't quite understand how debugging is affected? E.g. there are (usually) no inline functions in STB-style headers.
It does seem that 'modern' idioms tend to just be doing the same thing in a more obfuscated manner. Just a .c/.h pair would have been easier to add to your source.
This is a valid point. I was on the fence between doing .c/.h pair and a single .h. But finally took the inspiration from: https://github.com/nothings/stb.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but compiling a program into a local directory shouldn't try to install packages globally. `make install`, I could understand doing that.
I had no idea that cmake would do this, after reading quite a lot of things about cmake v.s. make and how to write various makefiles for them. I posit that the C build tools are fundamentally hard to comprehend.
Due to the success of build tools like Gradle, build.rs or any other one that packages a Turing complete language to steer a build, apparently many want such daemons on their homedir.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. A `build.rs` is supposed to be for compiling non-Rust code and stuff like that, not mucking about with the package manager – and by and large, people don't use it for mucking about with the package manager.
Its a slow to compile idiom. The only reason to use it is if you expect people to download the header and plop it in. Basically its an end-run around build systems.
In my tests with STB-style headers written in C between a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of line of code, the compilation speed difference between including the header with disabled implementation, versus including with the implementation section removed from the file is absolutely negligible. This is because the implementation block is already skipped in the preprocessor, and never parsed by the compiler frontend.
Again, this is different from typical C++ single-header-libraries (e.g. pretty much all C++ stdlib headers) where the implementation code is inlined or in template code.
