No, but you can get the form to request the form. Then it must be stamped by an official in the [strikethrough]Ministry of Information[/strikethrough] Ofcom. Please allow 4-5 months for processing thanks to our partners delivering efficient intersection of Government and Industry, Capita.
Popularity is a poor measure of performance in UK politics. The British public are regularly shown to be fickle and easily led in their judgements.
Results are a bit meh so far with Labour but at least they're not Trussesque dangerous. And positive achievements rarely get a mention in our press. Can't think why.
One thing that I don't understand though. The theory is they washed up a local river, got embedded in sediment and are only now being released. Given that, I would have thought their condition would be much worse. More likely that they were well-packaged on the wreck and have only just been released ?
Not only for a surprisingly long time, but also in surprisingly good condition. For example at Vindolanda on Hadrian's Wall archeologists have found not one or two, or even ten but over 5000 amazingly preserved Roman shoes that were apparently thrown away into the fortress's moat and survived buried in the mud <https://www.vindolanda.com/Blog/the-curators-favourite-shoes>.
Hilariously they're never found a pair of shoes, only singles. So that's why they think they were thrown away as rubbish, because one shoe broke so they threw it in the ditch. In the museum on site there's a fantastic "wall of shoes" on display where you can see the amazing leatherwork from 2000 years ago <https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/37305>.
> Hilariously they're never found a pair of shoes, only singles.
From that first link: “These two little treasures were part of the hoard of over 400 shoes excavated in 2016. One would probably think that we have lots of pairs of shoes however, we only have a few. But this pair was easier to identify as they were small and have a less usual construction style as they do not have a seam that stitches them up over the toe and they were also found close together.”
Also, looking at those shoes, many of them don’t look beyond repair to me. Quite a few look like they’d need only minor repairs.
My prior understanding was that before the industrial revolution dramatically reduced the labor costs, clothing was expensive. Most people only owned two or three outfits, and replacing one would cost a month's wages sort of expensive.
How could one afford to throw away a perfectly good non-matching shoe?
Thanks, I hadn't seen either of those. It's good to see other projects leveraging runnable markdown, as it has a lot of potential.
I like the literate programming tool. I've always liked experimenting with Jupyter notebooks, and I can see running markdown directly as replacing a lot of the ad hoc things I use them for.
It would be great to see Anthropic add support directly to Claude Code, and OpenAI to Codex. I think this sort of literate scripting will become more common this next year, especially as model reliability improves and the tool-use gets smarter.
I would go so far as to say the rise of Rails and the downfall of J2EE being concurrent was not entirely accidental. I have/had no particular affiliation for Rails, but it demonstrated how to write simple, opinionated backend code, and that inspired a flurry of Java/JVM web frameworks that tried to follow a similar pattern and eventually gave us libraries like DropWizard, Javalin, SparkJava, even Spring Boot to some extent.
That's the first time I've heard the C syntax being called "too rich". It's the epitome of succinctness IMHO (too a fault, even, or maybe I'm just old). Are you confusing it with C++? If so, you have a point.
As a Lisper I would consider C having too much syntax. 3 different kinds of brackets, a mix of prefix, suffix, and infix operators, both dot and hyphen + greater than symbol infixes for member access on structures depending on whether you're accessing members of a struct directly or from a struct pointer, semicolons at the end of every statement, the different ways of declaring imports,...
C's syntax is pretty lacking by modern standards, requiring gross things like The Lexer Hack to resolve ambiguities that other languages just don't suffer from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexer_hack . To say nothing of the madness that is C's type declaration syntax, necessitating tools like https://cdecl.org/ and "the spiral rule" for reading type declarations (which doesn't actually produce the correct result anyway).
So "modern standard" is to make it easier for compiler writers instead of programmer to read the code? Thanks god C designers had their priorities elsewhere.
>>"the spiral rule"
Not a problem in 99.99% of cases where it's just:
type name = something;
I am talking about C syntax, not absurdely grotesque ultra-complex syntax like the ones from c++, java and similar (is that true that rust syntax is not that much less worse than c++ one now?).
We need a new C, fixed, leaner and less complex: primitives are all sized (u64, u8, f64, etc), only one loop primitive (loop{}), no switch, no enum, no typedef, no typeof and other c11 _generic/etc, no integer promotion, no implicit casts (except for void* and literal numbers?), real hard compiler constants, current "const" must go away (I don't even talk about "restrict" and similar), no anonymous code block, explicit differentiation between reinterpret,runtime,etc casts?, synchronous numeric computation handling, anonymous struct/union for complex memory layouts, and everything else I am currently forgetting about.
(the expression evaluation of the C pre-processor would require serious modifications too)
We need clean and clear cut definitions, in regards of ABIs, of argument passing by value of aggregates like structs/arrays, you know, mostly for those pesky complex numbers and div_t.
We need keywords and official very-likely-to-be-inline-or-hardware-accelerated-functions, something in between the standard library and the compiler keywords, for modern hardware architecture programming like memory barriers, atomics, byte swapping, some bitwise operations (like popcnt), memcpy, memcmp, memmove, etc.
In the end, I would prefer to have a standard machine ISA (RISC-V) and code everything directly in assembly, or with very high level languages (like [ecma|java]script, lua, etc) with a interpreter coded in that standard machine ISA assembly (all that with a reasonable SDK, ofc)
New C is old B? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_(programming_language)
I implemented some examples using B language. I like its typeless and simplicity. It would be nice if there was a modern and mature implementation of this language, it's a true portable assembler.
1. Save the linker script as hello.ld
2. Run 'riscv64-linux-gnu-ld -T hello.ld --no-dynamic-linker -m elf64lriscv -static -nostdlib -s -o hello hello.o' to generate the binary.
You can now run objdump to view the elf.
reply