On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote:
> On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote:
>> On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 16:56:27 UTC, Jacob wrote:
>>> I've noticed that you seem to be quite arrogant. Usually it is a result of ignorance. Your statement basically proves that.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should take a break from programming for a while and work on your attitude?
>>>
>>> While you have no proof of this, If you do a little soul searching you'll find that the world doesn't revolve around you. Put down your toys and get out of the sandbox and you might learn something!
>>
>> Dude you are kind of being a jerk. He's just arguing against, rather passionately, a design decision he thinks is poor. It values no one if individuals remain quiet and conform. Certainly not the leadership. What you see as arrogance is really just passion.
>
> Passion or not,
>
> "If you are wondering why I'm inflammatory, here you go. You are pulling me the old prove a negative trick. You have good evidence that DIP25 is good design ? Good, because I have none. And that's my proof. As long as I have no evidence that DIP25 is good, DIP25 is bad."
>
> That statement shows a lot of arrogance.
>
> It he not really just saying "I have no clue if X is true, but since I don't know, I'll just assume it's false and assume you are wrong.".
>
> That's not very logical. Why wouldn't he just as well assume X is true?
>

Because people with half a brain know that's not how it works.

Proves me that unicorn do not exists. I'm waiting. And remember, having no evidence that they do exists doesn't mean they do not !

> Hilter was very passionate too, are you saying he was right?

ICH BIN EIN POLYNOMIAL!

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote:
> On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Passion or not,
>
> "If you are wondering why I'm inflammatory, here you go. You are pulling me the old prove a negative trick. You have good evidence that DIP25 is good design ? Good, because I have none. And that's my proof. As long as I have no evidence that DIP25 is good, DIP25 is bad."
>
> That statement shows a lot of arrogance.
>
> It he not really just saying "I have no clue if X is true, but since I don't know, I'll just assume it's false and assume you are wrong.".
>
> That's not very logical. Why wouldn't he just as well assume X is true?
>
> The fact is, he can't and shouldn't make such statements about X if he has no "evidence" about it.
>
> Instead, wouldn't the proper approach be to discuss, learn, and share what one things in a positive way so everyone can learn about X and reach a more intelligent understanding of it?
>
> Hilter was very passionate too, are you saying he was right?

Since you brought up the Hilter reference, it's useful to mention that he was successful because people blindly followed him and his actions...

But really...do we always have to resort to Hitler references when discussing disagreements? Seems very cliche.

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 17:59:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Hilter was very passionate too, are you saying he was right?
>
> ICH BIN EIN POLYNOMIAL!

As this thread has run it course starting with the Hitler comparison, and is therefor OT.
You have to explain to me, why your are a polynomial :-)

Am Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:59:26 +0000
schrieb deadalnix <deadalnix@gmail.com>:

> > It he not really just saying "I have no clue if X is true, but since I don't know, I'll just assume it's false and assume you are wrong.".
> >
> > That's not very logical. Why wouldn't he just as well assume X is true?
> >
> 
> Because people with half a brain know that's not how it works.
> 
> Proves me that unicorn do not exists. I'm waiting. And remember, having no evidence that they do exists doesn't mean they do not !

Ok, so here we arrived in d.religion. Today: "Agnostic vs. atheist, who is right." And: "Testimony: I tried to change the world but God didn't give me the source code."

-- 
Marco

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:18:46 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 17:59:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> Hilter was very passionate too, are you saying he was right?
>>
>> ICH BIN EIN POLYNOMIAL!
>
> As this thread has run it course starting with the Hitler comparison, and is therefor OT.
> You have to explain to me, why your are a polynomial :-)

That's a reference to The Oatmeal : http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:23:05 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> Ok, so here we arrived in d.religion. Today: "Agnostic vs. atheist, who is right." And: "Testimony: I tried to change the world but God didn't give me the source code."

Well, I talk about D-ifying code sometimes, but saying that out loud is problematic...

- Jonathan M Davis

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 16:04:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> _loosely_ translated:
>
> isolated: void*
> transition: const T*
> reference: T*
> value: immutable T*
> box: globally as shared const T*, locally as shared T*
> tag: shared T*

The above turned out rather allegorical (and possibly confusing), the following is a lockfree interpretation that is a little bit more useful and somewhat more accurate:

ISOLATED: Unique!T
referable as void*, shared void*
transferrable to other threads

TRANSITION: Unique!T
referable as const T*, void*, shared void*
convertible to immutable T*

REFERENCE: T*
referable as T*, const T*, void*, shared void*

VALUE: immutable T*
referable as immutable T*, const T*, shared const T*, void*, shared void*
shareable with other threads

BOX: const T*
referable as const T*, void*, shared void*
aliasing with T*, immutable T*

TAG: void T* or shared void*
referable as void T*, shared void*
aliasing with all types as it is a pure identity


Then we can do a new interpretation with locking/synchronization and get something like:

LOCKED BOX: shared const T*
referable as shared const T*, void*, shared void*
aliasing with shared T*, immutable T*

LOCKED TAG: shared T*
referable as shared T*, shared const T*, void T*, shared void*

More or less...

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:24:13 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

> That's a reference to The Oatmeal : http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism

thanks

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:13:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote:
>> On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Passion or not,
>>
>> "If you are wondering why I'm inflammatory, here you go. You are pulling me the old prove a negative trick. You have good evidence that DIP25 is good design ? Good, because I have none. And that's my proof. As long as I have no evidence that DIP25 is good, DIP25 is bad."
>>
>> That statement shows a lot of arrogance.
>>
>> It he not really just saying "I have no clue if X is true, but since I don't know, I'll just assume it's false and assume you are wrong.".
>>
>> That's not very logical. Why wouldn't he just as well assume X is true?
>>
>> The fact is, he can't and shouldn't make such statements about X if he has no "evidence" about it.
>>
>> Instead, wouldn't the proper approach be to discuss, learn, and share what one things in a positive way so everyone can learn about X and reach a more intelligent understanding of it?
>>
>> Hilter was very passionate too, are you saying he was right?
>
> Since you brought up the Hilter reference, it's useful to mention that he was successful because people blindly followed him and his actions...
>
> But really...do we always have to resort to Hitler references when discussing disagreements? Seems very cliche.

It's only cliche if you aren't interested in the truth. It doesn't matter if I used Hilter or any other person that was "passionate" but wrong.

Hilter is just the greatest example and most obvious example. If you actually understand the issue, you would realize it has nothing to do with Hilter.

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:17:43 UTC, Jacob wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:13:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote:
>>> On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Passion or not,
>>>
>>> "If you are wondering why I'm inflammatory, here you go. You are pulling me the old prove a negative trick. You have good evidence that DIP25 is good design ? Good, because I have none. And that's my proof. As long as I have no evidence that DIP25 is good, DIP25 is bad."
>>>
>>> That statement shows a lot of arrogance.
>>>
>>> It he not really just saying "I have no clue if X is true, but since I don't know, I'll just assume it's false and assume you are wrong.".
>>>
>>> That's not very logical. Why wouldn't he just as well assume X is true?
>>>
>>> The fact is, he can't and shouldn't make such statements about X if he has no "evidence" about it.
>>>
>>> Instead, wouldn't the proper approach be to discuss, learn, and share what one things in a positive way so everyone can learn about X and reach a more intelligent understanding of it?
>>>
>>> Hilter was very passionate too, are you saying he was right?
>>
>> Since you brought up the Hilter reference, it's useful to mention that he was successful because people blindly followed him and his actions...
>>
>> But really...do we always have to resort to Hitler references when discussing disagreements? Seems very cliche.
>
> It's only cliche if you aren't interested in the truth. It doesn't matter if I used Hilter or any other person that was "passionate" but wrong.
>
> Hilter is just the greatest example and most obvious example. If you actually understand the issue, you would realize it has nothing to do with Hilter.

I don't know. Whenever someone runs out of arguments and is forced to go on the attack, Hitler seems to be the first insult people reach for. Thus once I see Hitler references pop up, I throw out that individual's credibility. Solves bandwidth problems of who is worth listening to.

Some soul searching for you, is I'd refrain from such references as it only hurts your credibility. Not the one you sling it at.