hkmaly

Dan said on Discord that Susan's ideal height is about Diane's height, which would be Susan's original height before the growth spurt, my guess is that level 2 ranged is around Susan's current canon height, and it probably the tallest that she's willing to be. I guess she could have used cosmetic potions before to make her look like level 1 ranged height, but maybe at the time she didn't want to mess with it too much and played it safe with level 2 across the board appearancewise. Well, yes, but I think that level 1 ranged is smaller than Diane's height. Of course maybe I'm just bad in comparing height.

Hmm. Well, one thing I've noticed about regular expressions is there are variant schemes; inclusion in the core library should serve to consolidate that. Too useful to ignore. There is just one PCRE I think ... https://www.pcre.org/ That is my impression, and I may quote you on that. It might be better to find the original quote instead of relying to my re-back-translation ... I found this one but that's probably not that. It is definitely harder to shave yourself without anything sharp ... Not sure what you speak about but it's definitely not 286 protected mode. Only thing specific to 286 protected mode is that the error is INT-D while on 386 most of them are INT-E. Either you mean protected mode in general as opposed to real mode - which is definitely true, in real mode, errors like this will cause undefined behaviour, while in protected mode, most of them will be caught by protection mechanism - or you speak of specific IDE. Note that in linux, this class of errors will be reported to your program as SIGSEGV. Which you can not just catch, but also recover from - indeed, you CAN implement virtual memory in userspace linux program by automatically memory mapping a page on SIGSEGV then returning from the signal handler, which will make the program continue where it was interrupted. Of course, if it's error, you probably don't want to let the program continue.

It's funny that those two are exactly the two we know most about history of, so can be most certain they are not siblings. ... or for people who are not on twitter like me. Yeah, "for security reasons". Having privacy goes against security - especially against THEIR security. Also, yes, facebook is identifying people in crowd on photos. At least for now it's just on photos.

However, this is not about living life again ; losing levels and regaining them with potions is something which has no real-life analogy.

No it doesn't and lot of those people just have too much free time. As long as whole project is formatted consistently and commented enough, you don't need to follow some of those anal standards ... Some programming languages have break(number) to leave multiple loops, but yes, goto is actually easiest for such cases. Note that it IS (or at least recently was) used in linux kernel in such way. Also, I think that current replacement is to make sure you have the loops divided into functions nicely and use return. What is strange about that question is that I'm fairly certain you could come up with a much better list than I could. I recall macros being interpreted other than how they were intended, and order of operation ambiguities. Technically, the macro language is independent to C itself. But you have point that the C preprocessor language is error prone and actually the most likely error is when you assume it's part of C language - it's not and there are cases where it matters. There is no problem with order of operation ambiguities. There are just people lazy to use parenthesis. Fair, but core library is a major part of a language's identity. Refer back to "Why use Fortran?" Exactly. Yet there are no regular expressions in C core library. ... I've saw some saying how in (was it pascal? Unlikely ...) everything was childproofed, while C gives you razor and assumes you will use it to shave yourself and not to cut yourself. So yes, you're right that it wouldn't be good programming and is an accident waiting to happen. And in most cases, even in C, there really ISN'T any problem like this ... but, unless the compiler can prove it, it must assume the worst. It's definitely not normal. Few examples: read. printf. open. fork (that one doesn't get ANY arguments). exec. XCreateWindow. mysql_query. Seriously, you can't write program without using subroutines with sideefects which would still be good for something. Also, when you have nontrivial data structure - think something like DOM - you typically give one pointer (or object reference) to subroutine, but that doesn't mean the subroutine is not going to modify something in completely different part of that structure. If you have balanced tree, inserting element somewhere can trigger rebalancing and change whole tree. That said, yes, it is usually considered good practice to reduce number of global variables and their use and let as much subroutines as possible operate only on their arguments. It's just that as most good practices, following it to letter and not having ANY global variables can lead to even worse code. To return to the given example, it's completely possible that max_i is reading from terminal, or that something(i,j) is operating on file. Even when it's written better as something(fd,i,j), the compiler would need lot of intelligence to realize that there is hidden variable - the file position - which depends on i and j without it being obvious and that reordering the switches will break the code, because something(fd,i,j) is not expecting it and is not doing something like seek(fd, i*max_j+j) on start just to support reordering.

Well, technically, he COULD make a poll and at least find out HOW MANY prefers what ... but I don't really fault him for not doing it. ... didn't stopped me ... I don't think it would be fair to assume that making the volcano explode in nice way is a skill one can acquire and not just dumb luck ... Well, her idea wasn't exactly genius-level.

I thought that was a rather exact statement. Now that I've watched the Weird Al thing it makes more sense. Oh. Looking just for Sauerkraut was not enough.

Agree. No, I don't think it will be this fast. Also, for meta reasons, I don't think Pandora shows before griffins.

If we're talking Susan telling Grace about what happened the night of the vampire attack before telling the other, then it probably would be something Grace might have trouble with, especially since it involves Pandora and Grace knows how close Pandora was with Tedd and Sarah. If Susan does end up telling everyone else though and her talks with Grace only involves anxieties and stuff that probably comparable to what she's talked to Justin about, then it's probably not as likely for Grace to spill any pintos. Yeah, I was thinking about the second scenario. First, I think Susan was thinking about using Grace as therapist in future and that she don't want to keep what happened that night secret THAT long. Second, I expect that for some reason or other, Susan will be forced to say everything today.

The expression, yes, but the "gasp" sounds more like she is trying to drink it as fast as possible. Granted, drinking it fast so I can be done with it IS reaction I had on stuff I didn't like, but on the other hand, drinking something this fast can produce that expression even if it doesn't taste bad. ... ANY visible results so fast after drinking would normally be cause of concern, so, good to hear. I'm regretting looking what that is. What made her force feed it to you when twenty six and half? I don't think my mum tried to force feed me anything at least from age ten. Probably because she knew that when I say it makes my stomach turn I'm not bluffing.

Would SUSAN like her as a therapist in such case? Granted, most of secrets it would involve is stuff Grace already knows or will know soon ... and Grace's ability to keep secrets is much better when it's not her friends she keeps the secrets from ... but still, I suspect that Susan would re-think that.

It's been a few years, like decades since I played poker, but would card counting be of any use in standard poker? Blackjack, of course, but poker? Don't you use the whole deck for each hand? As I never played poker, no idea. However, Data definitely was good at playing Blackjack.

Finally leveled up ... in spell casting. I hope next strip wouldn't be the same about ranged weapons and Wednesday about melee weapons ...

That MIGHT be one of explanations ... but it seems like it only confirms something she found in other way. Emotion reader. Still. In fact, Riker, her Imzadi, might be only one Diane is actually able to read the mind of. Stack the cards in way noone noticed he was not just shuffling them: he PROVED it in one episode. Also, he literally doesn't have any emotions to show. Well it IS sci-fi.

She roleplays Magickal Gatherings. I don't think she ever played poker but she would be probably bad at it. At first. Now, when she learns to keep her emotion hidden (or better, fake her emotions: remember that it's not important how you face, just that the face you are making is not related to how good cards you have), how to have antennae out in public without attracting attention (to read emotions of others) and how to count cards (she should have talent for that) ... she may get close to Deanna Troi levels. Of course, Deanna was still losing to Will Riker. Just as Data the android and La Forge the guy who can see through the cards.

I don't think she found out via her spell, I'm not sure how she found out, but I fairly sure she didn't use her spell during a date. ... looking forward to finding out eventually.

https://www.egscomics.com/egsnp/parable-098 ... and confirmation that yes, Susan still doesn't need to be afraid of running out of money. Or purity. Also, apparently this was first time it happened since the "cheats off". ... in fact, maybe she lost her purity as well and only now got it back? Would explain that +10% affinity ...

While technically true, I don't think she will get anywhere in the plot without continuing in the story. She likely AT LEAST needs to find all heroes, if not directly win the game before continuing the plot ...

Probability she found out due to her spell and is not sure because the spell is not reliable INCREASED. Also, the date was date because Sam acted very differently transformed.

Personally I would second that recommendation: however, I suspect that there are few problems: She wants non-lethal takedown The game engine won't support crafting, even so simple one The game engine won't support potion explosions, despite supporting explosives and grenades used by enemies Of course, I never played it so I may be mistaken.

Sure, but this one WAS funny. Also, it suggests we are getting out of "meta" topics. I expect next comix she will finally level or at least decide how to level.

Can you give examples in how C's SYNTAX is error prone? It may take little time to get used to block being delimited by parentheses instead of words like begin/end, but it's not more likely to cause errors - and in fact, the fact the parenthesis always matches helps: in pascal, "end" may end different things. It's interesting how much are you willing to excuse to cobol due to it's age yet you don't excuse anything to C. Sure, lack of bounds checking can leads to errors, but at the time C was developed it really speeded up things. Even today, doing boundary check on every access to array would make the program unusable - BUT now, we have compilers capable of optimizing code and finding out where the boundary checks are really needed and where not. And memory leaks are not caused by bound checking. Memory leaks are caused by mistakes in hand-made memory management. Alternative to that is garbage collecting ... which basically works by not releasing memory until it hits limit, then stopping the program to look what needs to be released. NEITHER is acceptable on computer with small memory in program dealing with I/O and therefore needing to respond. Again, even now it can be problem, and it's only not that serious because we have more memory, faster CPUs and much more effective algorithms for garbage collecting. Sure, it's easier to leave the work with memory allocations on programming language. Until it breaks and then it's impossible to fix because it's INSIDE the language itself. (Lot of garbage collecting languages had or still have problems with cyclic data structures . Of course, not LISP - but I'm sure there is reason why mark&sweep garbage collecting is not used more widely.) Note that javascript, a language having garbage collector, is famous for serious memory leaks caused by failure to collect cyclic data structures. ... and, of course, Pascal requires manual memory management as well. Note also that surprising number of today's programs is unable to correctly recover from not enough memory OR disk space. People actually used to do stuff like manual memory management are less likely to make such mistakes ... and no, language CANT fix this for you. There are no regular expressions in C. Unlike basically any modern language - in many, regular expressions are part of language itself, in rest, core library. Explicit tends to be less trouble than side effects, although see above, some things should automatically happen; bounds checking would in a sense be a side effect. From a formal language theory point of view, everything you actually want the program to do is a side efect, including but not limited to any input or output. However, to show an example: for i := 1 to max_i() do for j := 1 to max_j() do something(i,j) end end In C, it is possible that max_j, despite having no arguments, in some hidden way depends on i or on something something(i,j) is doing. Therefore, the compiler is not allowed to switch those cycles without checking carefully - and not at all if those three functions are part of different file and therefore not known in time of compilation. In Fortran, it can. I don't actually know how it works, I only read it as an example. Maybe max_j is guaranteed to not have any sideefects, that is, to not depend on i because it didn't get i as argument. Maybe it's something else. But it's definitely useful, as if it's matrix multiplication, it's something happening extremely often and the compiler may know how to do it in way which makes memory accesses less random. It may even do multiple cycles in parallel.

That is a non sequitur. Computers have difficulty understanding the ambiguities in natural language. They have no trouble with a well structured declarative language that is also readable. There is no requirement to use obscure symbology. I'm looking at you, C. The "obscure symbology" drives home the point that if you don't understand the code you shouldn't try to write it. Also, C isn't using so much obscure symbology. Compared to C++. Or Perl. My impression is that C and sons had the best optimization, because people put their efforts into it. You could be right though, I wouldn't know. Doesn't help. Sure, people are putting lot of efforts into optimizing C, but some statements in C can't be optimized simply because the compiler can't prove the sideefects won't matter. In Fortran, it's explicitly said that compiler doesn't guarantee the sideefects and is free to change them. Note that this is not actually property of language itself ; it would be possible to just make a compiler flag changing that for C. It's just that in C, lot of code rely on non-optimized behaviour and would break. Sure, that also helps. Note that Pascal is language best suited for teaching programming. Compared to Fortran, which is best suited for computing, and C, which is best suited for programming. That's not an argument at all for using it now. The argument for using it now is it is already there. It's not like you're saying, "Hey, let's go write this new thing in COBOL"; COBOL tasks are all maintenance. It's like having an old clunker you'd love to replace, but it still runs and gets you where you're going, and you don't want to sink money into a new ride. ... The clunker is mostly from rust and you sink more money to keep it running than to buy something new ... but hey, you were always driving it. I'll see you C and raise you perl style regular expressions. Perl style regular expressions are quite logical extension of regular regular expression into context-free grammars. Actually using them as such is still bad idea. How?

Mischaracterizing? I'm not sure what would she get bad. Also, remember that this is the comix where Ellen was called Nanase's boyfriend. Granted, what sounds cute from child might not work for teenager ...

... really? Must be due to English being my second language.