Let’s meet in middle and start it at 0.5
R wins again! I’m grateful every time i write the vector 1:n
It’s useful though. It’s more of a point when it doesn’t work.
Anyway, there only one thing better than a sensible solution, and that’s a standard.
Not in MATLAB/Julia! (But like yes under the hood computers start at 0)
MATLAB, Julia, R, Fortran, Lua.
Imo the real point of contention is column vs row major ordering in matrices. Actually so cursed trying to move between languages.
Maybe the date is an engineer/mathematician, then the arguments just creates silos between disciplines
Not in my household. In some cultures the concept of 0 doesn’t even exist
You’re telling me If I have one item and give it away, in some cultures I’d have something other than no items? I’m not being sarcastic, that kind of blows my mind if true.
maybe you now have 1 lack of items?
If you can’t let your obsessions and natural thoughts all hang out with a person… were they partner mater- wait, well, you can’t do this with allistic people at all as an autistic person and allistics make up like 99% of the population.
Always have to filter your thoughts at first. Let that stuff out in drips. Then once comfortable you let it all hang out.
Ah then partner material needs to be autistic too.
Not autistic, but I have ADHD and also feel the need to filter my thoughts with a lot of people, which is a bit difficult given the “blurt my thoughts out” disorder. I’ve begun to understood they’re not partner material for me, through no fault of their own.
So unless I just want hook ups, I just need to hope I stumble upon less than 1% of the population. And not only that a population that goes out significantly less often and tends to be generally shy.
Great. Love it. I’m totally not going to die alone with this plan.
Nah, realistically I’ll get an allistic. And to some degree I’ve learned the allistic romance game, I’m just a novice. Helps a little that I’m an ace at making friends at this point.
There are ways to meet more people. Online works best for neurodivergents looking for other NDs.
Masking in a relationship isn’t healthy. Being single is better than the feeling of having to filter yourself for the one person that’s supposed to just get you. Maybe you’ll find an allistic person who you don’t have to filter all your thoughts for, maybe it needs to be another autistic person. But for the love of flying spaghetti monster, don’t waste your life dating people who make you feel bad for being the pure, unadulterated version of yourself. I’ve made that mistake multiple times. It wears you down over time. You get in a relationship and you’re happy. It takes time to notice you have to pretend you’re someone else. By the end, you hate the other person and yourself. Fuck that. It’s not worth it. Find yourself someone that can’t get enough of your quirkiness.
And I mean dating apps suck but I’ve met some great people on Tinder of all places. It’s probably the worst of them all, but really the only one with a big enough userbase in my country. It’s a pure numbers game. Even 1% is a big number if you swipe thousands upon thousands of profiles over time. Or join groups for whatever hobby you’re most passionate about. Discord servers will do even. It’s 2026. There’s probably babies out there whose GRANDPARENTS met playing vidya. Nothing to be ashamed of.
Just do yourself a favour and start reducing the filter as soon as possible when talking to a potential romantic interest, whether it’s in real life or online. They might find you more interesting that way anyway and you also won’t get stuck wasting your time on someone who doesn’t like the real you.
Masking in a relationship isn’t healthy.
TBH, at this point the original me is long dead. I am my masks.
Further, there are legitimately elements of my personality that I don’t even share with family. The only place I open myself up is arguably on the internet. I’m a bitter, mean, terrified, self loathing, and arrogant person on the inside. Benevolent in many respects materially perhaps, willing to give time and energy and resources to my friends and family. But on a emotional level I’m a walking festering clump of scar tissue that I cannot dare share with people without bringing about discomfort or even revulsion from them.
Being single is better than the feeling of having to filter yourself for the one person that’s supposed to just get you.
But for the love of flying spaghetti monster, don’t waste your life dating people who make you feel bad for being the pure, unadulterated version of yourself. I’ve made that mistake multiple times. It wears you down over time. You get in a relationship and you’re happy. It takes time to notice you have to pretend you’re someone else. By the end, you hate the other person and yourself. Fuck that. It’s not worth it. Find yourself someone that can’t get enough of your quirkiness.
Just do yourself a favour and start reducing the filter as soon as possible when talking to a potential romantic interest, whether it’s in real life or online. They might find you more interesting that way anyway and you also won’t get stuck wasting your time on someone who doesn’t like the real you.
Be single for as long as I have and you’d realize that being in a bad relationship is at least a life experience. Being single is hollow. Its empty.
A big reason I’ve been single for so long is I’ve been on autopilot and focusing on personal projects, but I’ve essentially missed so many chances due to my obliviousness as a result. Now that I’m hyper fixated on finding someone, I’ve gotten multiple chances and slowly gotten better at the "game’. I’m getting closer, I can feel it. I am miserable doing this “project” though, but that misery will pass once I either find someone or fully give up. I don’t do things half ass. Its all or nothing.
To be frank, I need to experience a bad relationship that lasts longer than a week and that isn’t just a hook up situation. I need the bad experience. I need to fail faster. If the relationship ends up being good, great. But I’ll be glad to feel anything.
And I mean dating apps suck but I’ve met some great people on Tinder of all places. It’s probably the worst of them all, but really the only one with a big enough userbase in my country. It’s a pure numbers game. Even 1% is a big number if you swipe thousands upon thousands of profiles over time. Or join groups for whatever hobby you’re most passionate about. Discord servers will do even. It’s 2026. There’s probably babies out there whose GRANDPARENTS met playing vidya. Nothing to be ashamed of.
I’m using the apps. I definitely despise them, but I’m using them.
Being single is hollow. Its empty.
I used to think so too. Then I had a properly abusive partner. Mentally, physically, financially. I’ve since come to realize that being in a relationship for the sake of being in a relationship is not worth it. And that you need to find meaning in your life BEFORE you can be happy in a relationship.
To be frank, I need to experience a bad relationship that lasts longer than a week and that isn’t just a hook up situation. I need the bad experience.
Hmm, perhaps you’re right. Just try to remember that good relationships can exist too, even if you run into several bad ones. Otherwise the bad will consume you.
I used to think so too. Then I had a properly abusive partner. Mentally, physically, financially.
I’m sorry to hear that. I hope you are doing better.
I’ve since come to realize that being in a relationship for the sake of being in a relationship is not worth it. And that you need to find meaning in your life BEFORE you can be happy in a relationship.
I don’t believe in a meaning in the first place. Just experiences & seeking contentment.
Also, I have plenty of things I’m into, but I tend to hyper focus on projects. And if I’m focused on something other than seeking a relationship, I seem to be incredibly bad at picking up signals and chances.
Now that I’m hyper fixated on the dating/hook-up/relationship hunt, I notice I’m excellent at it. I’m just kind of miserable doing anything else that I previously enjoyed because I normally enjoy a lot of solo activities and my brain is constantly haunting me with “Shouldn’t you be out looking for a partner?” constantly.
Its not so much that I need a partner to be whole, its that I need a steady partner so I can close out this “project” of mine. I may end up closing it out with a fail state eventually, and I’ll be upset but I’ll be able to live with that because at least I tried. There is a sort of soft end point in mind.
Hmm, perhaps you’re right. Just try to remember that good relationships can exist too, even if you run into several bad ones. Otherwise the bad will consume you.
I’m poly/ENM, don’t believe in “destined love” or Victorian/classic romance, and value my sovereignty a lot. I’m not seeking to own someone or have them own me. I’m simply seeking deep and long lasting love. I’m what you could describe as “Theriromantic” or “Paleoromantic” but those are not terms unfortunately. There is a very low risk of a bad relationship consuming me to the point that I risk being stuck in one.
I bet the date wasn’t in ISO 8601
I got some files from a supplier last month date suffixed mmddyy, ex: concept1-250426
I didn’t even recognize it was a date stamp at first, until putting it alongside some earlier files from them with something like 190426
what the fuck kind of nearly useless date stamp is that
So they were dated the same day exactly 6 yrs apart. What a crazy coincidence.
I’m more of an RFC 3339 kinda guy
Heretic!
He prefers freedom rather than give money to useless companies.
arrays don’t have indices. lists have indices. arrays have offsets.
This is a language dependent semantic difference.
I’ll see myself out
hey no you can’t logic your way out of this! i wanted an argument!
No you didn’t
I said good day sir!
Good day (sir); ftfy
I think you got that backwards sport. Index implies direct access but offset implies traversal.
no? an offset is just a number that you add to an address to get a new number. and index in a generic position marker.
Says who?
By definition, an index is
a number or symbol or expression (such as an exponent) associated with another to indicate a mathematical operation to be performed or to indicate use or position in an arrangement
Since the arrays offsets alao tell us about the items’s position in the array, is it not then an index?
People take these terms way too seriously. Hell, many languages have their “list” implemented as an array. What then do you call the index/offset?
if you want my opinion (<- see now you can’t tell me i’m wrong, it’s an opinion) then the difference is that an array is by definition a memory address that’s designated as the beginning of an array, and it’s got an offset because the first element is at that specific address and further items are offset from that address. so you add the offset to the address to get the nth item. a list, meanwhile, can be basically any implementation under the hood, but it’s commonly a linked list. the way you get the nth index there is you count up from the first position. since the implementation is opaque and may be spread out in memory you can’t arithmetic your way to an index, you need to follow the pointers.
java’s arraylist is a list backed by an array. java’s vector is a list backed by a linked list.
That doesn’t really address what you call it. Names only really just exist to get your point across. Inexperienced devs may not know what an offset means (or why we use that), so index does the job. An experience dev knows how it works anyway, so whether you say index or offset won’t matter. By virtue of the common denominator, I simply use index everywhere.
depends on the area you’re working in. it’s a pretty important distinction in embedded software.
Why? I’ve worked as an embedded dev for a few years and nobody in my team cared what it was called.
because making sure offsets are correct come up a lot when you’re memory-mapping IO.
Right but whether they’re correct or not doesn’t depend on the name you use. Every programmer worth his name knows arrays start at offset zero even if you don’t call it that.
Um actually they have strides and offsets.
You can’t take my ‘i’, we have been together.
you can’t spell offset without off. as in fuck.
(affectionate)
The real reason she won’t call back.
indeed. permanently off by 1.
§6.7.9 of the C11 standard says they have elements with indices:
If an array of unknown size is initialized, its size is determined by the largest indexed element with an explicit initializer. The array type is completed at the end of its initializer list.
it also states in section 6.7.7 (“type names”) that
If the pointer operand points to an element of an array object, and the array is large enough, the result points to an element offset from the original element such that the difference of the subscripts of the resulting and original array elements equals the integer expression.
note also that your example is the only occurrence of the word “index” in the entire document that isn’t just referring to the actual index at the end.
Adding my fuel to this fight
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/indexOf
javascript doesn’t have arrays. the backing data structure is a doubly-linked list.
I’m aware, I added fuel, not peace and love
and the backing for that is linear or page addressed MOS transistors, spinning rust or flippy-round magnets.
do you have a source that indicates mainstream JS engines internally uses a list structure for arrays? I can’t find one.
skipped a few steps there i think.
anyway, good question. led me to some cursed code.
the ArrayObject in spidermonkey is an interface to either a TypedArrayObject or a SharedArrayObject. those both have an inner ArrayBuffer object, which is a view into ArrayBufferObjectMaybeShared, which contains a refcounted vector of uint8 pointers, regardless of the datatype. soooo all arrays in javascript are… strings?
skipped a few steps there i think.
thanks for the considered reply. didn’t mean to jump all the way down to electrons and sound so flippant.
my claim is that JavaScript arrays are arrays because the spec defines their behavior as such. the implementation details are absolutely interesting from a performance perspective and I was genuinely curious how an internally linked list implementation would actually work, real-world. regardless… almost every interaction I have ever had with a JS programmer has ended in “its strings all the way down”… so… I mean… yes-ish?
loved your poking of the hornets nest in this thread :-)
i was thinking between the linked list and the transistors :)
also, i mean… what you might call an array i might call a vector. js arrays allow elements of different types, so they are by definition not arrays in the traditional sense. them being chars internally does make sense in a gross way.
That’s a different kind of array (Float32Array etc.), not the “normal” kind.
i couldn’t actually find any of that in spidermonkey. i was looking in js/vm/arrayobject and its parents, didn’t see any others.
I’m guessing it’s this? https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/source/js/src/builtin/Array.cpp
If I’m understanding you correctly, they’re basically doing the same thing as Python under the hood and using a heap-allocated array (vector) of pointers? If so, that should still be orders of magnitude faster than a linked list.
If their implementation is actually a linked list, colour me shocked. My impression was that JavaScript is “decently fast”. I’ve never even considered writing high-performance code in it, but I’ve heard that the compiler can optimise extremely aggressively, and it’s used so widely that I couldn’t imagine that it had glaring performance issues like what I would expect to see if every array was actually a linked list under the hood.
can’t a jit move things around enough that a linked list could be transformed into a memory-backed array if the access pattern requires it.
Sure it can, as long as it retains behaviour according to whatever standard it needs to comply to. My point was rather that I would be very surprised if the actual implementation (at memory level) was a linked list.
She was a Lua girl
I was too late to make the Lua joke, damn
Worse. She prefers Matlab over Numpy.
I think I’m going to be sick.
Her name was Lua as well
Lua Dipa?
🎶her name was lua🎶 🎶she was a coder🎶
Screams in Lua
And R
Julia and Mathematica
And MATLAB
And myaxe.
And FORTRAN (I do nothing but SCREAM in FORTRAN anyway)
Djikstra was so fucking wrong with this and people who parrot this are so annoying.
Sure, an offset starts at zero, but an index can very well start at one. Not all arrays represent a physical offset, please stop pretending your inferior zero only indexing is in any way superior.
Sometimes math is just simpler from one. When you’re translating math to code, one based indexes are usually better.
If your math uses numbers it’s not real math.
Technically Real math only uses numbers.
No
I believe it was a joke where real maths refer to maths dealing with real numbers.
In economics, many indices start at 100.
Economics? Completely replaced by bistromathics
There is no second date because
YYYY-MM-DD'T'HH:ii:ss'Z'is the only acceptable date.Unless you’re programming in VBA. But at that point you’re already fucked anyway.
fucked anyway
So you’re saying she’s BASIC?
cries in X++
TIL
My suggestion for people who want to get into developing for Dynamics 365 F&O and X++:
Don’t.
spoiler
Although I will admit that with the limited number of D365 devs out there, you can probably get some good work. Just … you have to jump through some hoops to be able to tinker with it, since it’s MS’s big ERP system.
You dodged a bullet, my friend.
she forgot and is already getting her guts rearranged by Chad Thundercock 10.5"
