These sorts of strange delusional comments, followed up by a claim that they can’t understand normal perspectives on things like “what would you do with a fridge”, are surprisingly common on HN. I have no idea what sort of thinking goes into a comment like this, but I suspect it’s sort of role play where they imagine the world would be such a great place if only everybody else also prescribed to their fringe view on fridges.
On the other hand it’s always worth questioning these things as what everybody else finds normal might just have been effective marketing by someone with something gain.
Well, the normality of fridge usage (in developed countries) can’t really be called into question, regardless of how it got that way. But this idea that somebody who’s chosen to live without a fridge can’t understand why somebody could possible want to have one is just completely disingenuous, and honestly it’s a form of rhetoric that’s unsettlingly common here.
I'm not agreeing with software limits comment, neither do I agree with your reaction to it. Clearly modern fridge usage can be called into question, that's what this whole discussion is about. Binary responses aren't interesting, there is a continuum that can be explored.
I mean, if words aren’t going to have defined meanings anymore, then I guess you can question anything. But the Oxford definition of normal is:
> conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Having a fridge is entirely normal, and to claim otherwise would require quite an extraordinary justification.
If you wanted to question whether people really need them, that would be a much more reasonable line of inquiry. But for anybody posting here to claim that they cannot understand why people would want to have one is frankly not believable.
there's plenty of ways to store things without refrigerating them. you can keep meats and other things for a long time without refrigeration.. using for example salt.
Agreed. Otherwise it undermines the point of having controls.
If the random feature adjusted the settings then it might be a bit more acceptable but leaving them the same whilst drawing a dramatically different face breaks their "control" nature.
Yes, that must be it. As I understand it, the deconstruction was included in the working copy of his book before Chapter 1, and then later removed, correct?
Edit: Ah, incorrect. He actually intended it to be a chapter-by-chapter deconstruction but never completed it.
Are we sure he never completed it? Or are these just missing parts from the (pirated? preview?) online PDFs?
Because if that's it, then it was just two points he was making, 1. Null-terminated char arrays are "defective"/unsafe, and 2. Don't omit curly braces, for which he seems to have received a lot of backlash, even though those are quite valid points. I'm guessing it may have something to do with taking it up against the grandfathers of C and his rather ...hands-on writing style?
Critique 1. isn't actually that controversial, and does have merit[1], and 2. is a stylistic decision, that even John Carmack[2] would agree on.
However it's slowing changing. Knoppix has always been seen as a trend setter, and it still has a large influence where it matters - open source maintainers that are not corporate-driven (i.e. Debian).
Knoppix hasn't been seen as a trendsetter in an extremely long time that I know of. I remember it being a big deal before live CDs became a thing that everyone did, but that's about it.
