bitfucker

joined 8 months ago
[–] bitfucker 9 points 3 months ago

My god that character behind her scares me the first time I saw him

[–] bitfucker 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] bitfucker 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah, hence is-"number". But we were talking about regex are we. A number representation can use digits but it can also not. Much like how you make a number using the word "elf".

[–] bitfucker 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Alright, maybe you misunderstood the term digits with numbers. When parsing a digit, you do not attach semantic yet to the building blocks. A \d regex parser does not care that the string "555" is not equivalent to "VVV". All it cares about is that there is the digit "5" or "V". In the same vein, regex parser should not try to parse IV as a single symbol.

[–] bitfucker 2 points 3 months ago

As I said, a digit is a symbol. Much like how we use letters to compose words, digits are used to construct numbers. When you start to repeat or reuse the symbol then it is no longer a singular symbol (what regex \d does). Hence my comments on why arabic script are one of the understandable debates since i18n is a valid concern as much as a11y is.

[–] bitfucker 7 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Yeah, but "elf" are not digits. Digits are a symbol abstracted from the language itself. Does 5 and V convey different meanings in the context of digits? And yeah, I can see why they would argue about the implementation because inclusivity is important. Especially when designing a language implementation. If you are designing it wrong, it will be very hard to extend it in the future. But for application level implementation, go nuts.

[–] bitfucker 10 points 3 months ago (9 children)

So the only valid digits are arabic numbers but arabic script numbers are not a valid digit? If we want programming to be inclusive then doesn't that make sense to also include the arabic script number?

[–] bitfucker 1 points 3 months ago

You mean strategy?

[–] bitfucker 0 points 3 months ago

I mean yeah, that is the point. A higher being told you to do X, you understood X exactly as it is a concept that you already have built upon in the course of your life. But you still cannot comprehend the higher being itself.

Take a simple thought experiment from flatland. If a spherical (3D) being were to appear on an otherwise 2D (flatland) world and say "Do not go to your house tonight". The flatlander can understand the meaning of what the sphere said, but cannot comprehend the sphere itself in its entirety. No matter how the sphere explains himself to the flatlander, the flatlander may not have the correct picture of the sphere.

[–] bitfucker 5 points 4 months ago

Caaaarls, that kills people

[–] bitfucker 1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

But not all religions claim to have perfect knowledge of their god? Some acknowledge that god is greater and beyond our understanding

view more: ‹ prev next ›