Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 885895's commentslogin

>unix-like

Not just unix-like, OS X is certified UNIX.


Yeah, I guess the author meant more like "very similar to Unixes (unices?) I've used before", which quite possibly means 'various Linux distros'. Aside from official certification, OSX is still sufficiently different to make this mistake forgivable, and not just in terms of the UI. The filesystem organisation is unusual, to say the least.


Maybe we should start calling Unix variants 'Linux-like'.


What does this atually mean (when compared to Linux, which is a UNIX clone)? That they have paid someone for a certificate? Is it more than that?


It means you can be sure that the APIs described here exist, with at least the set of specified arguments and behaviors.

http://www.opengroup.org/standards/unix

For example, http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/

However, just like C, any certified implementation is free to add extra behaviors and there are certain parts that are actually implementation specific, like how signal handlers behave in certain situations.


Yes, it means that someone payed money for a useless certificate. Nothing more, nothing less.

BTW, Linux is UNIX too!

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3596.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX


So all APIs provided by all Linux distributions fully support the POSIX specification to the smallest detail?


Maybe after some nonsense like "export POSIXLY_CORRECT" and defining a few macros.


Which means it isn't actually a proper UNIX out of the box.


Verdict: no true scotsman is true unix.


"POSIX_ME_HARDER"


Yes, the certificate is useless

Unfortunately some people will only sign big cheques if the given useless certificate is present


Hey, before you call certificates like that 'useless' just think of the thousands of government jobs that depend on them!


One of my favorite math-related scenes in The Simpsons is where Prof. Frink is standing on stage in front of a group of scientists and not getting attention.

Prof. Frink: "Looking for some order. Some order please with the eyes forward and the hands neatly folded."

(Audience not paying attention.)

Prof. Frink: "Hrm..."

Prof. Frink: "Pi is exactly three!"

(Collective gasp from the audience. Prof. Frink now has their attention.)

---

Edit: Went looking for part of the quote which I couldn't catch, found a book which seems interesting. Simon Singh, 2013. The Simpsons and Their Mathematical Secrets [1]. Singh is also known for his 1997 book Fermat's Enigma [2] and his 1999 book The Code Book [3]. The former of the books I've heard is interesting and the latter of which I enjoyed very much back when I read it.

[1]: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17287021-the-simpsons-and...

[2]: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38412.Fermat_s_Enigma

[3]: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17994.The_Code_Book


Would this also work as a "music for programmers" course?


Won't the extreme similarity to Disney cause problems?


Proper archive version: https://archive.is/nlKS


Is this a social commentary joke? It must be.


I really hope so. If it is, the creator needs to drop better hints because clearly the absurdity of the concept in and of itself is going to be lost on most people, as the VentureBeat post demonstrates.

The registrant email associated with the getrumblr.com domain is [email protected]. jackk.im is the website of Jack Kim, who lists himself as the co-founder of OneTune.fm, a current Stanford student and former founder of Benelab, "a web-based nonprofit startup dedicated to harnessing the immense power of web search to fund incredible causes."[1]

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack7kim


The founders already went public with the information in this interview with CBS 5 Phoenix. Matt Henderson and Jack Kim, New York City.

http://www.kpho.com/story/30460494/app-connects-strangers-wh...


This Matt Henderson[1], who is the "Chairman & Chief Executive Officer at Juhász & Associates, LLC", "a digital branding agency passionate about genuine and sincere human engagement," has been retweeting Rumblr's Twitter account. You really can't make this stuff up.

I wonder if the founders are going to eat their own dog food. By the looks of their photos, I'd guess not.

> “We're kind of all hands off after people meet,” said Jack Kim, the second half of the Rumblr duo. “Beyond that we don't condone any specific type of violence and we do specifically state when you sign up, we're not legally supporting any of what you're doing here.”

This is perhaps the best proof yet that you can get into a school like Stanford even as an idiot.

[1] https://twitter.com/juhaszhenderson


Here is a video interview of them I found if you're curious - http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/30460494/app-connects-str...


>Suppose that you can’t remember whether Pluto is a dwarf planet, and you need to find out by asking someone nearby—but you don’t know whether that person is a knight or a knave. What’s the one yes-no question you can ask to figure out whether Pluto is a dwarf planet?

>"Are you a knight if and only if Pluto is a dwarf planet?"

>If the person’s a knight and Pluto is a dwarf planet, then you get the answer “yes,” since both statements on each side of if and only if are true, and knights always speak truly.

I don't get how this follows. Surely, the person being a knight or a knave is independent from whether or not Pluto is a dwarf planet so a real knight would say "no" either way since the assumption is bad and a knave would thus say "yes". Thereby, you have not determined whether or not Pluto is a dwarf planet but instead whether the person is a knight or a knave.

Please explain my error.


It's easier if you see it as logical operations, rather than language. A iff B has the same meaning as A == B, but with the added twist that !B negates the answer in the example (knaves always lie). So let's take A = Pluto is a dwarf planet; B = you're a knight, then "are you a knight if and only if Pluto is a dwarf planet" has the formula (B && (A == B)) || !(!B && (A == B)), which after a bit of simplifying you can see is the same as A == True || !(A == False), or A == True.

Very often logic formulas, when translated in English, sound absolutely bonkers, not least because the words if, and, or have pretty loose meanings in ordinary language.


"If and only if" sounds strange to me too. Like asking if he's a knight when Pluto is a dwarf planet. And on second reading it looks like an awkward way to say And...

I think "Is one and only one of [A, B] true?" would be better. Or, (A ^ B).


There is no assumption. There is just "A if-and-only-if B" where A and B are both true and therefore by definition the whole statement is true.


One thing is having backup, another thing is having backup which is not overwritten by more recent backup.


4/10. "Only slightly worse... than a random guess!"

I already knew that 24-bit vs 16-bit would be indistinguishable for pop music but I would not have expected that the same would go for 16-bit vs 8-bit. Or, well, I was kind of expecting it since otherwise the person who put this test together likely wouldn't have bothered.

However, I don't mind. I've never claimed to be "audiophile" -- a fact which is reflected by the inexpensive headphones I use :)


How so?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: