|
I posted something a long while back. It was a post about my speed records driving on sidewalks.
How Fast Do You Drive On Sidewalks? [^]
I have a little bit of housekeeping I'd like to do.
I won't name any names, but one individual
decided to reply to a thread of mine
with a rant. He wasn't very nice.
He and a couple dozen others immediately
piled on, attacked me with derogatory
slurs, incessantly mocked everything they
could about me, and even expressed humor
about the death of one of my family members.
That's the one reason that I post this thread.
The individual who instigated the whole mess
by posting his rant needs to be called out for
subjecting another person to such defamation.
For those of you who participated in this,
take a look at the truth. Review the evidence,
and then take a look at yourselves. If it
doesn't amuse you, it means you shouldn't
take yourself so seriously.
Below is a post that I wrote in another thread.
It demonstrates the humor of the truth. That was
many months ago, and no one saw that post.
For the record, here it is. 
Ah, ha! Yes! Do any of you remember my thread asking you guys
how fast you drive on sidewalks?
**Yes, I have driven 63 mph on a sidewalk!
OK, back on topic. I think GTA is a great game!
I used to play Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas back in 2007.
I never actually learned how to play the game.
I still haven't a clue how to play it.
I had every cheat code memorized.
I spent most of my time shooting down police helicopters
by the dozens with an endless supply of rocket launchers.
Then, I discovered how to turn off gravity.
I would magically materialize a military tank out of thin air,
turn off gravity, get inside the tank, and repeatedly fire
the cannon. The recoil would accelerate the tank in reverse,
and once I got up to speed, I would take off into the air.
Sometimes, I'd land the tank on the road and, *GASP* veer off
the road and onto the sidewalk! 
DISCLAIMER: I'm sorry to all of you who are reading this.
It's not my intention to traumatize anyone by what I'm saying.
May God bless the many loved ones in your life who were lost
being hit by vehicles driving down sidewalks.
I can only imagine how amazing the newest versions of GTA are.
If you can still turn off gravity, materialize unlimited
military tanks out of thin air, and play the game as a
flight simulator, I want to play it! 
**That would have turned out to be a fun thread if it weren't for an unnamed social justice hero who derailed that thread with his preposterous act of virtue signaling. I apologize to all of you who read that thread. For those of you who have lost loved ones (many of you, I'm sure) from being hit by cars driving on sidewalks, it wasn't my intention to traumatize you or trigger you to have a PTSD episode. I've had a family member who was killed after being struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian. It's an awful thing, but I'm glad it didn't destroy my sense of humor.
|
|
|
|
|
Those movie advertisements they show in theaters before the main feature, why are they called "trailers?"
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I would be more curious how popular that specific question is on google.
I couldn't find an answer to my question. I did find the Wikipedia page for the OP question. Wikipedia was launched in 2001 and the page for that question was added in 2005.
And then I thought about looking up the oldest page
Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles - Wikipedia[^]
Kind of interesting not because of the pages but rather the history of why they really have no idea what the original page was.
|
|
|
|
|
So I am not the only one asking about that  Now that there are two of us, I took the time to see if Wikipedia could help me, and found this:
Due to trailers initially being shown after, or "trailing", the feature film, the term "trailer" was used to describe the promotion; despite it coming before, or "previewing", the film it was promoting. This practice was found to be somewhat ineffective, often ignored by audiences who left immediately after the film.
So, historically, they were trailing the main feature. Thanks for making me look it up
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for doing the legwork on that 
I suspected as much.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
this_guy_tho.jpg[^]
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
 Maybe it’s one of those Impossible dogs (that got Joey Chestnut disqualified from the main event)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I'm creating a data bank of MCQ (Multi Choice Questions) and their answers so that an app can be built around it. Regarding the actual storage format, I have two ideas:
- An array of objects with keys (
q for question, a for choice-a, etc.). - An array of arrays.
The first one is obviously more readable. Here is a brief sample of what I have so far:
{
"data": [
{
"q": "What kind of language is Python?",
"a": "Compiled",
"b": "Interpreted",
"c": "Parsed",
"d": "Elaborated",
"r": "b"
},
{
"q": "Who invented Python?",
"a": "Rasmus Lerdorf",
"b": "Guido Van Rossum",
"c": "Bill Gates",
"d": "Linus Torvalds",
"r": "b"
}
]
}
The app will read the q key to print the question, then present the four options (a, b, c and d). And the last key (r) will store the right answer. This is very much readable when viewed as a JSON file also. However, what I am thinking is that once the data-bank grows in size into hundreds/thousands of QA, a lot of space will be wasted by those keys (q,a,b,etc.) isn't it? In this case, an array like this is more efficient from storage perspective:
{
"data": [
[
"What kind of language is Python?",
"Compiled",
"Interpreted",
"Parsed",
"Elaborated",
1
],
[
"Who invented Python?",
"Rasmus Lerdorf",
"Guido Van Rossum",
"Bill Gates",
"Linus Torvalds",
1
]
]
}
In this case, each array will have 6 items viz. the question, four choices and finally the index of the correct choice (1==Interpreted, etc.).
Which of these two formats is better? Feel free to suggest any third format which is even better than these two.
|
|
|
|
|
I like the 1st better.
The 2nd, for me anyway, would be harder to keep track of square brackets.
If you can't find time to do it right the first time, how are you going to find time to do it again?
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.4.0 (Many new features) JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, the question should probably be asked in "Design&Architecture[^]" forum.
Second, my preference would be for something like:
{
"data": [
{ "q": "question",
"a": ["answer1", "answer2",...],
"ok": 1
},
...
]
}
---
Edit: My suggestion allows you to have a variable number of answers to each question. Not sure if it's important or not for your application.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. Unless your married to the idea of encoding the indexing, I'd go with something like this personally based on the info given:
{
data: [
{
"question": "What kind of language is Python?",
"answers:": [
{ "answer": "Compiled", "correct": false },
{ "answer": "Interpreted", "correct": true },
{ "answer": "Parsed", "correct": false },
{ "answer": "Elaborated", "correct": true }
]
},
{
"question": "Who invented Python?",
"answers": [
{ "answer": "Rasmus Lerdorf", "correct": true },
{ "answer": "Guido Van Rossum", "correct": false },
{ "answer": "Bill Gates", "correct": false },
{ "answer": "Linus Torvalds", "correct": false }
]
}
]
}
Handles questions with multiple correct answers, and both questions and answers are easily expandable without breaking backwards compatibility. The biggest issue with your options is that the moment the requirements change (and requirements /always/ change) the format is going to get mangled in a non-backwards-compatible way. Your current format cleverly avoids objects/properties to save space by treating the head and tail of each array uniquely. What happens when requirements dictate that relationship can no longer hold? For example, questions with multiple correct answers. Cleverness is an avoidable dependency, so unless space is that critical of an issue I would tend to go with the more flexible option that gives me less headaches down the road.
|
|
|
|
|
Of the options provided so far, that gets my vote. And I'm too lazy to suggest my own.
|
|
|
|
|
I read the thread in The Insider News tracking off to the novel 'When Worlds Collide', and looked up the 1951 movie adaptation at IMDb, curious to see if they had made the movie in color or B/W. The movie is in color - but the 1954 ad poster reproduced in Wikipedia, as well as all the photos from the movie shown at IMDb is is in black and white.
Why is that? Was is really that much more expensive in 1951 / 1954 to make color photo prints and color ad posters that you couldn't afford it on a USD 1M budget (note that this is 1 mill 1951 USD!)? Or is there some other plausible explanation?
According to IMDb, the movie won an Oscar for Best Special Effects. The trailer (available at IMDb) suggests that the Oscar was well deserved, especially for a movie released 73 years ago!
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: the 1954 ad poster reproduced in Wikipedia, as well as all the photos from the movie shown at IMDb is is in black and white.
That's odd - the Wiki Page I found has a colour poster: When Worlds Collide (1951 film) - Wikipedia[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Scroll down to the Production heading. To the right is a B/W Drive In poster.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the OP has a black and white monitor... His profile pic is black and white, too.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember it well! Great movie! And yes, the cost of color printing was quite high compared to black and white. Since most people didn't have color TVs until the early 1970s, we were quite used to seeing things in black and white.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, George Pal was involved so the Special Effects award shouldn't have been too much of a surprise.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
See title
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
This is almost exactly the same question I asked here in the Lounge about 7 years ago. I was struggling with something and it wasn't working as I expected it to and hence the frustration.
@JeremyFalcon gave a really good response to that question and 7 years later I fully agree with him.
Most of the hate JS gets is from people who are new to it, and probably have an expectation of how it would/should work. When it does not (and not always due to a straight forward reason) it gets frustrating.
Historically JS has been riddled with issues. It still is. But over the years most of the major issues with JS are now avoidable when we use it a certain way.
For example, the global namespace pollution has been a major issue causing countless production bugs which can be avoided with the use of JS modules or IFFEs.
The callback hell can be avoided with the use of asynchronous programming.
As people get more experienced with JS they become more accepting of it's quirks and manage to avoid it's pitfalls while being able to produce robust production ready code.
|
|
|
|
|
I think part of it is lingering feelings from way, way back when when every browser had their own implementations of certain features which meant that building any sort of platform that was going to work cross-browser was a major headache.
I remember adopting MooTools because it offered cross-browser AJAX support, then obviously jQuery when it came along with it's own solutions. These days most JS functions are normalised (ie. the fetch API) but there's a lot of salt in the wounds that can't be cleaned so easily.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm learning it just now, new job needs it. My biggest gripe is lack of typing of variables. I would like to know what kind of value, object, etc I can pass into a function.
Okay, I do like that they are called functions rather than methods. Cut my teeth on C and then Delphi (which had both functions and procedures) but it rankled me for the 10+ years I worked in Java that I had to say method.
Javascript does have something akin to function pointers, which is a nice throwback to C.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: My biggest gripe is lack of typing of variables.
Typescript to the rescue
|
|
|
|
|
Erm ... JS has both methods and functions - the former operate on object data (as per C#) the later are procedural and don't (as per C)
The difference in name is important because it tells you what you can do with a bit of code - that's why Java insists on method to differentiate it from the more primitive function you were used to in C.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
