Yeah, their work-the-workers-literally-to-death culture is top notch.
rikudou
joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
Yep, pretty much, though the particle itself is the energy, not some kind of energy it gives off.
Mass and energy are convertible between each other, so you can think of it as the black hole losing mass equal to the mass of the particle, if it helps.
A funny way to describe Linus going from 0 to nuclear sub 1 second whether someone is being mildly obtuse.
Well, simply not possible. Might not be what you want to hear, but iOS simply isn't for you if you're not prepared to pay for pretty much everything.
Unlike Android there's not a lot of good free stuff and you can't pirate anything on iOS.
It's not a particle in the regular sense you might know, like an electron. The pair that comes into existence is meant to annihilate immediately (meaning there's zero energy gain or loss) but because of where it appeared it can't.
When it appears as I described, there suddenly exists a real particle in the universe outside the black hole, so the universe gained +1 in energy.
But energy can't be created or destroyed, so that +1 means somewhere there must be a -1. And that somewhere is the black hole which caused the particle to exist in the first place by swallowing its pair.
It's not very intuitive, that's the fun part about quantum mechanics: nothing is intuitive.
Depends on your definition of "true". Is it scientifically true? No. Is it the actual science simplified a lot so it can be read by a non-physicist human being? Yes.
Are you talking about a mercenary group in general or this particular mercenary group which is kinda famous for raping?
Why the ad hominem? What's sensible is an opinion, not an objective truth.
I'm not saying to kill him but to send him back. Sure, the end result might be the same, but that piece of shit doesn't deserve anything from us.
Or maybe not, because that's exactly why they murder us but we keep them in nice prisons instead.
He's a commander in a mercenary group, how much more proof do you need?
Well, that's just a blog. WordPress comes to mind, though try not abusing it by installing too many plugins and transforming it to an abomination that takes 3 seconds to hack.
There are probably more modern alternatives, I personally wrote my own blog system that uses ActivityPub to synchronise with Lemmy and others.
Murdering and raping is over, time to seek some protection. They should put him back to Russia with a big sign saying "Hey, Putin, this guy tried to flee Russia! Wouldn't it be a shame if he fell out the window?"
Ah, the traditional Russian values of hiding the truth from your superiors because there's a culture of shooting the messenger of the bad news. Can't see this going wrong when training an AI.
The time flies really fast! Exactly 2 years ago I was the one and only user of this instance and now there are thousands of us! So happy birthday to Lemmings.world and hope you all enjoy our small corner of the internet!
cross-posted from: https://chrastecky.dev/post/16
Starting with PHP 8.5, you'll be able to do the following:
public function __construct( final public string $someProperty, ) {}This wasn't possible before, as promoted properties couldn't be declared
final.Perhaps the more interesting part is that you can now omit the visibility modifier if you include
final. In that case, the property will default topublic:public function __construct( final string $someProperty, // this property will be public ) {}Personally, I’m not a fan of this behavior — I prefer explicit over implicit. Fortunately, it can be enforced by third-party tools like code style fixers. Still, I would have preferred if the core required the visibility to be specified.
What do you think? Do you like this change, or would you have preferred a stricter approach?
cross-posted from: https://chrastecky.dev/post/16
Starting with PHP 8.5, you'll be able to do the following:
public function __construct( final public string $someProperty, ) {}This wasn't possible before, as promoted properties couldn't be declared
final.Perhaps the more interesting part is that you can now omit the visibility modifier if you include
final. In that case, the property will default topublic:public function __construct( final string $someProperty, // this property will be public ) {}Personally, I’m not a fan of this behavior — I prefer explicit over implicit. Fortunately, it can be enforced by third-party tools like code style fixers. Still, I would have preferred if the core required the visibility to be specified.
What do you think? Do you like this change, or would you have preferred a stricter approach?
cross-posted from: https://chrastecky.dev/post/13
This change is quite straightforward, so this won’t be a long article. PHP 8.5 adds support for annotating non-class, compile-time constants with attributes. Compile-time constants are those defined using the
constkeyword, not thedefine()function.Attributes can now include
Attribute::TARGET_CONSTANTamong their valid targets. Additionally, as the name suggests,Attribute::TARGET_ALLnow includes constants as well. TheReflectionConstantclass has been updated with a new method,getAttributes(), to support retrieving these annotations.One particularly useful aspect of this change is that the built-in
#[Deprecated]attribute can now be applied to compile-time constants.As promised, this was a short post, since the change is relatively simple. See you next time—hopefully with a more exciting new feature in PHP 8.5!
cross-posted from: https://chrastecky.dev/post/13
This change is quite straightforward, so this won’t be a long article. PHP 8.5 adds support for annotating non-class, compile-time constants with attributes. Compile-time constants are those defined using the
constkeyword, not thedefine()function.Attributes can now include
Attribute::TARGET_CONSTANTamong their valid targets. Additionally, as the name suggests,Attribute::TARGET_ALLnow includes constants as well. TheReflectionConstantclass has been updated with a new method,getAttributes(), to support retrieving these annotations.One particularly useful aspect of this change is that the built-in
#[Deprecated]attribute can now be applied to compile-time constants.As promised, this was a short post, since the change is relatively simple. See you next time—hopefully with a more exciting new feature in PHP 8.5!
cross-posted from: https://chrastecky.dev/post/15
PHP has long had a levenshtein() function, but it comes with a significant limitation: it doesn’t support UTF-8.
If you’re not familiar with the Levenshtein distance, it’s a way to measure how different two strings are — by counting the minimum number of single-character edits (insertions, deletions, or substitutions) required to change one string into another.
For example, the following code returns
2instead of the correct result,1:var_dump(levenshtein('göthe', 'gothe'));There are workarounds — such as using a pure PHP implementation or converting strings to a custom single-byte encoding — but they come with downsides, like slower performance or non-standard behavior.
With the new
grapheme_levenshtein()function in PHP 8.5, the code above now correctly returns1.Grapheme-Based Comparison
What makes this new function especially powerful is that it operates on graphemes, not bytes or code points. For instance, the character é (accented 'e') can be represented in two ways: as a single code point (
U+00E9) or as a combination of the letter e (U+0065) and a combining accent (U+0301). In PHP, you can write these as:$string1 = "\u{00e9}"; $string2 = "\u{0065}\u{0301}";Even though these strings are technically different at the byte level, they represent the same grapheme. The new
grapheme_levenshtein()function correctly recognizes this and returns0— meaning no difference.This is particularly useful when working with complex scripts such as Japanese, Chinese, or Korean, where grapheme clusters play a bigger role than in Latin or Cyrillic alphabets.
Just for fun: what do you think the original
levenshtein()function will return for the example above?var_dump(levenshtein("\u{0065}\u{0301}", "\u{00e9}"));
cross-posted from: https://chrastecky.dev/post/15
PHP has long had a levenshtein() function, but it comes with a significant limitation: it doesn’t support UTF-8.
If you’re not familiar with the Levenshtein distance, it’s a way to measure how different two strings are — by counting the minimum number of single-character edits (insertions, deletions, or substitutions) required to change one string into another.
For example, the following code returns
2instead of the correct result,1:var_dump(levenshtein('göthe', 'gothe'));There are workarounds — such as using a pure PHP implementation or converting strings to a custom single-byte encoding — but they come with downsides, like slower performance or non-standard behavior.
With the new
grapheme_levenshtein()function in PHP 8.5, the code above now correctly returns1.Grapheme-Based Comparison
What makes this new function especially powerful is that it operates on graphemes, not bytes or code points. For instance, the character é (accented 'e') can be represented in two ways: as a single code point (
U+00E9) or as a combination of the letter e (U+0065) and a combining accent (U+0301). In PHP, you can write these as:$string1 = "\u{00e9}"; $string2 = "\u{0065}\u{0301}";Even though these strings are technically different at the byte level, they represent the same grapheme. The new
grapheme_levenshtein()function correctly recognizes this and returns0— meaning no difference.This is particularly useful when working with complex scripts such as Japanese, Chinese, or Korean, where grapheme clusters play a bigger role than in Latin or Cyrillic alphabets.
Just for fun: what do you think the original
levenshtein()function will return for the example above?var_dump(levenshtein("\u{0065}\u{0301}", "\u{00e9}"));
view more: next ›
Perhaps The Crew, sounds like the kind of game that makes you support it.