There are more assembler dialects than I care to remember.
The 2A06 assembler that people who write NES code (and later on SNES/GB/etc) use has some real quirks: $ prefixes a literal hex value but % is binary, but # in front of that is an address, registers are baked into the opcode (ldx -> load into X), and more.
Playstation folks all just used MIPS dialects which are mostly AT&Tish but the PS2 used an Intel style assembler.
> So what to do? Go to nearest coffee shop. You’re lucky if they don’t play tasteless trendy music. You’re lucky if a waiter doesn’t keep asking if you need anything, isn’t intrusive, and doesn’t subtly let you know when it’s time to leave by checking on you constantly . You’re lucky if no teenagers talking loudly about their-whatever-teens-talk-about-these-days. Oh, by the way, pay a lot of money to be here and to drink a nice cup of burnt coffe.
Astonishingly entitled. The point of a coffee shop isn't to provide you with a nice space to work but to sell coffee.
That doesn’t sound to me as entitled, more like acknowledging that they’re not the market most coffee shop owners are targeting. I’ve known a few places with target laptop workers but commercial real estate pricing in many markets is brutal in a way that libraries are less exposed to.
That would have been a very fair point but to me, the tone definitely comes off as "how dare these annoying waiters try to sell me coffee so that the shop doesn't lose money from me occupying a seat" and "how dare teenagers enjoy their time in a coffee shop, don't they know I have work to do?"
English isn’t my first language, so some sentences may have lost their nuance in translation. To me, that paragraph was more of a humorous, playful way of listing the aspects of working in a coffee shop that don’t suit me, rather than an angry, dissatisfied complaint.
I read that as more of a tongue in cheek recognition that coffee shops need a certain revenue per seat per hour, which isn’t a fault as much as not being what a remote worker is looking for.
<< The point of a coffee shop isn't to provide you with a nice space to work but to sell coffee.
Sure, but a coffee cup is not exactly expensive or difficult to make. The reason why companies tried so hard to make it inviting or 'third space' or whatever corporate types call it these days is that it helps sell severely overpriced sugar drinks of added caffeine.
This is not a shot at Starbucks. I love me some creme brulee, but it is important to recognize it for what it is.
Similarly, if it indeed is user entitlement that caused patrons to visit coffee shop and enjoy their drink in a nice space, then it was very much encouraged by corps for a good while ( for good reasons too -- apart from the historical ).
It is important to note that we are talking about extremes now. Up until now, the rules mostly encouraged self-governance and, in general, well, not being an asshole. That has been slowly eroded and we are in an expected spot, where some will push things to its limit.
While it is easy to be annoyed with those people, I would like to posit that they serve an actual purpose in the society. In a very tangible sense, they tell you where the lines actually are.
I disagree - I think those people are, to put it bluntly “the reason we can’t have nice things”. The only reason those lines need to be clearly defined is so those people know how hard they can push. If it wasn’t for that we could share.
Fair point, but we can’t ignore the fact that many coffee shops provide desks with power outlets, and sometimes even dedicated workspaces, and that this has become a clear trend. These coffee shops also earn revenue from customers who want a workspace, and they incorporate this into their marketing. So, cafes don’t rely solely on coffee sales; the environment they provide contributes significantly to their income. Many people choose cafes as an alternative way to spend time outside. Therefore, some bussinesses aim to offer a workspace, some a social space, and some simply create an environment for spending time.
And their offer just don't work for me. I'm not demanding anything from them; I just don’t use their business.
> Astonishingly entitled. The point of a coffee shop isn't to provide you with a nice space to work but to sell coffee.
How is this entitled? The author is just stating, accurately, that coffee shops are not conducive to working all day there. The author did not demand that coffee shops change to accommodate; to the contrary, the author simply chose a different venue.
I thought you were a bit harsh by calling it entitled, but then I saw “Then rent an office or subscribe to a co-working space? What? I get paid to work, not to pay for it.” Right afterwards, so I’m included to agree that there is definitely some kind of entitlement going on.
The irony is that even as this person complains about “paying to work”, libraries are often immensely expensive and he pays for that library with every paycheck and tax bill.
Leaving your warm bed, rising before the sun in the morning (and I’m a morning person believe it or not), getting ready, commuting, traffic, thinking about what to eat in the office, commuting again, leaving you no time to live your life.
Indeed there is some entitlement in there.
But then again, I am thankful that the author has decided to share her thoughts on the subject. It's fascinating. The idea that waking up before dawn or commuting etc... is not living - well, what is it, then?
I belive it's fairly obvious that I mean life outside the work by "living your life". It's a pretty simple math that if you don't commute, spend time in traffic you have more time to do your stuff (whatever is your stuff). I still don't get how not liking traffic or liking decent amount of sleep is "entitlement"
From this perspective, nothing we call ‘free’ is really free. Isn’t the purpose of taxes to receive some kind of service in return? I gladly use this service, and not having to spend part of my income for an office space (which I don't have to) doesn’t strike me as entitled. Maybe some thoughts are getting lost in conversation here.
To stick with this analogy: I think a white hat equivalent would be more like driving down the street with a garage door remote set to a default code and then notifying anyone whose door opens in response that they should change their code. I don't think that should be illegal.
Good point. I just thought that a direct link or summary of the formal reasoning would have made it easier for readers unfamiliar with the topic. But fair enough, the linked paper does cover it.
No, and that's a good thing. Just look at how quickly features are added to the living browser standards. Instead, we get a new POSIX version every couple of years that includes the special cases that actually work the same on BSDs and Linux after they're already implemented.
No, the argument is that it didn't "wipe the continent" and in fact caused far less damage than other things we're totally fine with. I don't see GP saying that they want an incident like this to repeat, just that, if it did, the consequences would be far less severe than "wiping the continent".
But GP used client and server correctly, no? In the traditional model, the server renders the text it received from the client. Nowadays, the client renders it itself and pushes the whole bitmap to the server.
Yes? But older X code used to use server side font rendering. The move to client side is the new thing. So this still sounds like the original comment got it right, though I guess ordered in a way that might make it ambiguous.
Indeed, I probably could have made it more clear I was referring to the situation in Gtk 2, but I figured it was implicit given that, of Gtk 1 and Gtk 2, only the latter renders text in client-side pixmaps/pixbufs.
