Page 1 of 27
Click to view bigger version
Until the day, that is, that our AI progeny learn how to teach. Teaching us is one thing, but when they move on to teach each other then...
More cartoon fun at xkcd a webcomic of romance,sarcasm, math, and language
Personally I think that all functional programmers should be restricted to the vocabulary of simple.wikipedia.org - yes I'm looking at you monads, currying, partial evaluation, trampolining, algebraic type systems, Curry-Howard correspondence ...
And the good news is that Randall Munroe, author of xkcd has a new book - Thing Explainer: Complicated Stuff in Simple Words which uses only the ten hundred most common words.
I love my Roomba and I don't beat it up when it repeatedly head butts a table full of glasses, not even when it managed to knock one off and break it. I know it doesn't mean it because it makes up for it by cleaning up. Now I'm conflicted - do I release it into the wild? The hover over text suggests that I have to, but I really don't want to.
The question, sorry cartoon, for this week is to work out if this really is recursion or is it simple iteration? If you find this too easy what about the hover over text? Extra credit for explaining Ozymandias and the connection to the first programmer and the first monster. Join in the debate here.
Can there be a bigger way to waste time than trying to get some missing Linux facility to work? It starts out so easy with a distro on standard hardware and a package manager but it ends in a time sapping session with gcc and make - and there are all those dependencies to get right...no seriously, there should be a health warning on the box.
This classic xkcd cartoon is another celebration of Donald Knuth's work - see Donald Knuth & The Art of Computer Programming. So why do we count from zero? And is it ever good to count from one? I can think of zero reasons for it...
We have all been there - the deep water with the sharks. It doesn't matter what the system is. The easy change that you didn't really have to make usually goes horribly wrong. What I don't understand is why there is always a moment when you suddenly realize the original system could never have worked in the first place...
Travelling Salesman Problem
Sometimes theoretical results just don't count in the real world. Remember when someone pointed out that route planning was NP hard? So no need to even try to create a satnav then...
Recursion. We live with it but there is still something extra fascinating about physical recursion. Look between parallel mirrors, point a video camera at a screen and, of course, organize a conference about organizing a conference. In this xkcd cartoon we see what happens when you slip a negation into the recursive loop.
This weeks xkcd classic points out that virtual reality, reality reality - its all the same really. A construct of the computational processes that go on inside our heads. You gotta admit it's a great excuse!
It all goes to prove that type conversions are in the eye of the beholder. Some of these seem entirely reasonable to me - but I'm not saying which ones!
It's fun but it's more like a detector for AI experts. The non-AI expert laughs and then worries about the possible coming robot uprising. The AI expert laughs...
Programmers often have "mechanical sympathy" - well as long as the mechanism is code. In general humans are kind to machines, mostly, and don't mind lending them their feelings and intelligence. We have to hope that in the near future that machines learn to do the same.
Why has no one created an app for this? Or perhaps they have and I just haven't sat next to the person who knows about it...
Exploits of a Mom
This is a classic xkcd and it is featured here just to make sure you know it. And have we learned to sanitize our database inputs?
My guess is that you can think of more reasons why average star ratings are bad but spare a thought for their use with system critical apps. A single valid negative may be the only rating you need to see. And the response "could not reproduce" isn't really a defence, is it?
There are many jokes that claim to be \"programmer\" jokes but this is the only one I know that guarantees you won't be amused if you are a non-programmer. So remember, you escape \"handcuffs\" with backslashes - as always.
Well the GOTO has to be considered harmful, but did Dijkstra really have a velociraptor in mind when he made his comment. Can it really be that some of us still don't understand what we are trying to do?
See: The Goto, Spaghetti and the Velociraptor
We were all beginners once, but we also all, well nearly all, went through that dangerous time when we thought we had learned to program and there was nothing, nothing at all, left to learn.
How wrong we can be and how sure we are right!
If you don't get this joke then it is likely that you don't call Linux GNU/Linux and have no idea what the HURD kernel is. If you do then you will realize that 2060 is a hopelessly optimistic date for the completion of GNU/HURD.
See: GNU Manifesto Published Thirty Years Ago
Ah, the perils of big data or data science or whatever statistics is called now. What always depressed me was that it was the "null" hypothesis. I was always cheering on the alternative hypothesis - well it has to be good if it's "alternative", right?
If you know what pointers are and can read the list of numbers then you are probably a C/C++ programmer. A word of advice - don't use "pointers" in your sense in natural or programming languages.
1 to 10
One day when we have a truly high level language, or perhaps lots of them, programmers will not remember what binary is and this will not set us apart any more. Something else will - but not binary.
This week's xkcd cartoon will probably irritate every programmer. The idea that there is a bug in the code is something that bores into your brain and finding a non-programming fix is just not satisfying. Even if you accept that the timer reboot is a quick fix I bet you would start thinking up a shell script to do the same thing without the hardware.
This week's xkcd cartoon states something very obvious - programmers are different. What doesn't ring true is that a non-programmer would have figured it out.
This week's xkcd cartoon reminds us of a time when the problem was clear and we fixed it - or did we? Even if we did. it is a well known law that commerce abhors a vacuum.
This week's xkcd cartoon mixes the abstract flowchart with real world things. If only we could figure out how to do this... oh wait, we have, it's called a computer.
With Apologies to Robert Frost/strong>
This week's xkcd cartoon reveals that programming really is behind everything and in this case we do mean everything, life, the universe.
This week's xkcd cartoon makes fun of our tendency to make simple things seem complicated. Making up a complicated jargon obfuscates a simple protocol, makes what we do seem more impressive, but also makes it harder. In case you are wondering - yes there are 86,400 seconds in a day without a leap second.
This week's xkcd cartoon shows the real nature of computing. To the uninitiated, i.e. most people, it looks like magic, even if we know it really isn't. It isn't. No really, it isn't...
This week's xkcd cartoon is a frightening portent of quantum computing to come. Perhaps the uncertainty principle really is at the core of computing and not just an excuse for knowing the cause of a bug, but not its location.
This week's xkcd cartoon reminds us that we might be looking in the wrong place. Data from Kepler now suggests that there might be as many as 40 billion earth like planets in our galaxy alone. So once again - where is everyone?
This week's xkcd cartoon is the reason everyone should learn to program - even just a little bit. Without it the complex plains of the computer savanna becomes a hunting ground for superstition and ways of working that have no basis in reality, our reality at least.
Learning to Cook
This week's xkcd cartoon makes it clear that being a programmer makes it worse when you fail at anything. Not only do you fail but the chances are that you have an algorithmic explanation of the fail.
This week's xkcd cartoon illustrates the one great characteristic of any programmer. Never solve the problem in hand. Always solve the general set of problems of the same type with the help of a good algorithm.
This week's xkcd cartoon points out an unsolved problem - users and file systems. If you are a programmer then a hierarchical file system should be as natural as recursion but.. for users? Well they never seem to know where their files are. This is the reason mobiles don't have user oriented file systems and we all know how that works out...
This week's xkcd cartoon may sound like its about wierd but doesn't it sound familiar somehow? Ah, the internet allowing us to get hot under to collar about nothing much...
Inside Random Numbers
CD Tray FightCD Tray Fight
Dyslexia and Programming
Move Fast and Break Things
Candy Button Paper