On 2024-04-09, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2024-04-09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:32:21 -0000 (UTC)
>> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>>>On 2024-04-08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:35:48 +0200
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>On 08/04/2024 09:47, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>What makes you so sure about that? Are you assuming that because /you/
>>>>>are sexist, everyone else is?
>>>>
>>>> An immediate fallacious ad hominem no doubt in order to prop up whatever
>>>> straw men follow.
>>>
>>>You wrote, "people like you ... would never use a male pronoun if
>>>talking about nurses", written by you, is already ad hominem;
>>>it's a direct accusation of hypocrisy, rather than focusing on the
>>>argument content.
>>
>> Mine was correct in general, yours shows you don't understand the difference
>> between sexism and realism.
>
> I've not addressed myself to that topic whatsoever, let alone revealed
> a position.
>

He is easily confused - not worth arguing with.

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote at 19:48 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On 09.04.2024 17:30, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote at 07:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>>
>>> Id est, exempli gratia, focussing on the argument per se, as
>>> Kaz sensibly suggested. :-)
>>>
>>> (It's good that in English most of the Latin is hidden behind
>>> abbreviations like i.e. and e.g.; but there's no abbreviation
>>> for "per se"? Probably because p.s. is already occupied?)
>>
>> I think it might be because per se is so short.
>
> Not shorter than "id est". ;-)
>
> Janis

Fair, I have no idea then.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 21:48:35 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

> On 09.04.2024 17:30, candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> I think it might be because per se is so short.
>
> Not shorter than "id est". ;-)

“Viz.” is apparently short for “videlicet”.

Go figure.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:22:25 +0200, David Brown wrote:

> You could try doing what almost every other Python programmer does - use
> smaller functions and drop the silly line continuations.

Fine. Try that with the example I gave.

On 2024-04-10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:22:25 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>
>> You could try doing what almost every other Python programmer does - use
>> smaller functions and drop the silly line continuations.
>
> Fine. Try that with the example I gave.

Maybe you have a Python-coding niece or nephew in the fifth grade who can
reformat it for you?

Meanwhile:

Pass 1:

def fill_in_depreciations(tax_year) :
"""
(re)inserts depreciation entries for the specified tax year,
based on currently-entered assets.
"""

sql.cursor.execute("delete from payments where kind = %s and tax_year = %s",
["D", tax_year])
for entry in get_each_record(table_name = "assets, asset_depreciations",
fields = [
"assets.description as description",
"assets.initial_value as initial_value",
"assets.when_purchased as when_purchased",
"assets.depreciation_rate as rate",
"assets.depreciation_method as method",
"asset_depreciations.depreciation_amount as amount",
],
condition = "assets.asset_id = asset_depreciations.asset_id and"
" asset_depreciations.tax_year = %s",
values = [tax_year]):
sql.cursor.execute("insert into payments set when_made = %(when_made)s,"
" description = %(description)s, other_party_name = \"\","
" amount = %(amount)d, kind = \"D\", tax_year = %(tax_year)d"
% { "when_made" : end_for_tax_year(tax_year) - 1,
"description" : sql_string("%s: %s $%s at %d%% from %s" %
(entry["description"],
entry["method"],
format_amount(entry["initial_value"]),
entry["rate"],
format_date(entry["when_purchased"]))),
"amount" : - entry["amount"],
"tax_year" : tax_year })

Pass 2: fits into 80 cols and everything:

def fill_in_depreciations(tax_year) :
"""
(re)inserts depreciation entries for the specified tax year,
based on currently-entered assets."
"""

table = "assets, asset_depreciations"

fields = ["assets.description as description",
"assets.initial_value as initial_value",
"assets.when_purchased as when_purchased",
"assets.depreciation_rate as rate",
"assets.depreciation_method as method",
"asset_depreciations.depreciation_amount as amount"]

condition = ("assets.asset_id = asset_depreciations.asset_id and"
" asset_depreciations.tax_year = %s")

insert = ("insert into payments set when_made = %(when_made)s,"
" description = %(description)s, other_party_name = \"\","
" amount = %(amount)d, kind = \"D\", tax_year = %(tax_year)d")

sql.cursor.execute("delete from payments where kind = %s and tax_year = %s",
["D", tax_year])

for entry in get_each_record(table_name = table_name, fields = fields,
condition = condition, values = [tax_year]):
desc = sql_string("%s: %s $%s at %d%% from %s" %
(entry["description"],
entry["method"],
format_amount(entry["initial_value"]),
entry["rate"],
format_date(entry["when_purchased"])))
sql.cursor.execute(insert %
{"when_made" : end_for_tax_year(tax_year) - 1,
"description" : desc,
"amount" : - entry["amount"],
"tax_year" : tax_year})

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
[...]
> ITYM "he" would allow HIMself.

I am looking forward with great eagerness to this subthread dying out,
and I encourage everyone to help make that happen.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:51:56 -0000 (UTC)
Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
>On 2024-04-09, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-04-09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:32:21 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>>>>On 2024-04-08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:35:48 +0200
>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>On 08/04/2024 09:47, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>What makes you so sure about that? Are you assuming that because /you/
>>>>>>are sexist, everyone else is?
>>>>>
>>>>> An immediate fallacious ad hominem no doubt in order to prop up whatever
>>>>> straw men follow.
>>>>
>>>>You wrote, "people like you ... would never use a male pronoun if
>>>>talking about nurses", written by you, is already ad hominem;
>>>>it's a direct accusation of hypocrisy, rather than focusing on the
>>>>argument content.
>>>
>>> Mine was correct in general, yours shows you don't understand the difference
>
>>> between sexism and realism.
>>
>> I've not addressed myself to that topic whatsoever, let alone revealed
>> a position.
>>
>
>He is easily confused - not worth arguing with.

If no argument then
patronise
end if

On 08/04/2024 13:53, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 07.04.2024 23:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Even in the 21st century, articles like
>> <https:// [... snipped, to avoid giving it more publicity -- ANW]
> An extremely badly written article in *all* aspects (form, content,
> facts, quality, etc.).

Agreed. I think it is a prime candidate for the worst serious
supposedly-scientific web page I've ever seen. If it was written by a
12yo with access to ChatGPT, that would not surprise me. It has two
indirect redeeming features:

-- It pointed me at "https://opensource.com/article/20/6/algol68",
which /is/ worth reading.

-- Its list of the A60 committee members prompted me to check, and I
found, somewhat to my surprise, that one of them, Mike Woodger,
who I worked with briefly nearly 50 years ago, is still alive, aged
101. Having recently seen a couple of new scientific papers by F. G.
Smith, the former Astronomer Royal, aged 100, perhaps we are entering
a new era of golden oldies? Richard Guy made it to 103, and was still
working past his century. I know of a fair number of nonagenarians,
not least Tom Lehrer [96 yesterday], but [mostly] not whether they are
still active.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Necke

On 10/04/2024 at 01:31, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 21:48:35 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
>> On 09.04.2024 17:30, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> I think it might be because per se is so short.
>>
>> Not shorter than "id est". ;-)
>
> “Viz.” is apparently short for “videlicet”.
>
> Go figure.
>

Viz is a comic really.

--
Chris Elvidge, England
TEACHER IS NOT A LEPER

In article <87jzl5fz4c.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>[...]
>> ITYM "he" would allow HIMself.
>
>I am looking forward with great eagerness to this subthread dying out,
>and I encourage everyone to help make that happen.

Leader Keith has spoken. All must obey.

--
It's possible that leasing office space to a Starbucks is a greater liability
in today's GOP than is hitting your mother on the head with a hammer.

On 10.04.2024 11:10, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 08/04/2024 13:53, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 07.04.2024 23:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Even in the 21st century, articles like
>>> <https:// [... snipped, to avoid giving it more publicity -- ANW]
>> An extremely badly written article in *all* aspects (form, content,
>> facts, quality, etc.).
>
> Agreed. I think it is a prime candidate for the worst serious
> supposedly-scientific web page I've ever seen.

Oh, I haven't perceived its intention as being scientific; yet worse
if that's the case of that web site in general. (I've just read that
one article.)

> If it was written by a
> 12yo with access to ChatGPT, that would not surprise me.

:-) Wouldn't surprise these days, indeed.

> It has two
> indirect redeeming features:
>
> -- It pointed me at "https://opensource.com/article/20/6/algol68",
> which /is/ worth reading.

Indeed interesting. (I've meanwhile, after your hint, read it.)

>
> -- Its list of the A60 committee members prompted me to check, and I
> found, somewhat to my surprise, that one of them, Mike Woodger,
> who I worked with briefly nearly 50 years ago, is still alive, aged
> 101. Having recently seen a couple of new scientific papers by F. G.
> Smith, the former Astronomer Royal, aged 100, perhaps we are entering
> a new era of golden oldies? Richard Guy made it to 103, and was still
> working past his century. I know of a fair number of nonagenarians,
> not least Tom Lehrer [96 yesterday], but [mostly] not whether they are
> still active.

Interestingly, WRT committee members, that was one detail that annoyed
me; Friedrich L. Bauer was mentioned twice, once as "Friedrich Baue"
and once as "Friedric L. Bauer", both wrongly spelled (and not even
consistently wrong). - He died 9 years ago at age of 91. Two weeks ago
would have been his centenary! He established the CS chair here at the
university and (as is said) held the very first "official" CS lectures
in Germany. - I had the opportunity to hear his lectures during the
1980's.

Janis

In article <uv5f9q$qojn$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
....
>>He is easily confused - not worth arguing with.
>
>If no argument then
> patronise
>end if

Earlier, I said that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to
do is to stop digging. Let me re-iterate that. Trying to defend this
position online is a loser.

Now, that said, it may surprise you to learn that I basically share your
opinion about the state of the world (*). I just realize that arguing and
defending it online is a loser.

(*) I think the so-called "inclusive language" fad is stupid at best. But
like all fads, you can't really fight it. You just have to wait for it to
pass (as all fads eventually do).

--
I don't do things wrong.
I do things right.

I'm a legitimate person.

On 10.04.2024 14:46, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> (*) I think the so-called "inclusive language" fad is stupid at best. But
> like all fads, you can't really fight it. You just have to wait for it to
> pass (as all fads eventually do).

If it's institutionalized; "abandon all hope ye who enter here".

Janis

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:46:52 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>(*) I think the so-called "inclusive language" fad is stupid at best. But
>like all fads, you can't really fight it. You just have to wait for it to
>pass (as all fads eventually do).

The reason woke became so prevelant is because people were too timid to fight
it where it mattered. The end result is it caused polarisation between left
and right and the US ended up with Trump, poland ended up with a reactionary
right wing government and hungary still has one. All this could have been
avoided if the grown ups on the left had told the so called "progressive"
kidults who were only ever a tiny minority to STFU but they didn't because
they were and are cowards. And here we are.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 00:31 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 21:48:35 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
>> On 09.04.2024 17:30, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> I think it might be because per se is so short.
>>
>> Not shorter than "id est". ;-)
>
> “Viz.” is apparently short for “videlicet”.
>
> Go figure.

Huh, I don't think I've heard of that one.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <uv6abh$11f3e$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:46:52 -0000 (UTC)
>gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>>(*) I think the so-called "inclusive language" fad is stupid at best. But
>>like all fads, you can't really fight it. You just have to wait for it to
>>pass (as all fads eventually do).
>
>The reason woke became so prevelant is because people were too timid to
>fight it where it mattered. The end result is it caused polarisation
>between left and right and the US ended up with Trump, Poland ended up
>with a reactionary right wing government and Hungary still has one.
>All this could have been avoided if the grown ups on the left had told
>the so called "progressive" kidults who were only ever a tiny minority
>to STFU but they didn't because they were and are cowards. And here we
>are.

I can't disagree with any of this.

--
Shikata ga nai...

On 10.04.2024 14:43, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
> [ Friedrich L. Bauer ] - He died 9 years ago at age of 91.
> Two weeks ago would have been his centenary!

Correction: Two weeks ago was his 9th death day anniversary.
His centenary will be in two months. - Just noticed my error,
sorry.

> Janis
>

On 2024-04-10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:51:56 -0000 (UTC)
> Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
>>On 2024-04-09, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> I've not addressed myself to that topic whatsoever, let alone revealed
>>> a position.
>>>
>>
>>He is easily confused - not worth arguing with.
>
> If no argument then
> patronise
> end if

Finally, you are correct. There is indeed no argument with you. The
purpose of an argument is to persuade position changes, using reason.

Why a reasoned position might change is that the reasoning was not
adequately informed in some important point, or contained a mistake; but
a it's a fool's errand to use reason to try to change an unreasoned
position.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:21:32 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <uv6abh$11f3e$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:46:52 -0000 (UTC)
>>gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>>>(*) I think the so-called "inclusive language" fad is stupid at best. But
>>>like all fads, you can't really fight it. You just have to wait for it to
>>>pass (as all fads eventually do).
>>
>>The reason woke became so prevelant is because people were too timid to
>>fight it where it mattered. The end result is it caused polarisation
>>between left and right and the US ended up with Trump, Poland ended up
>>with a reactionary right wing government and Hungary still has one.
>>All this could have been avoided if the grown ups on the left had told
>>the so called "progressive" kidults who were only ever a tiny minority
>>to STFU but they didn't because they were and are cowards. And here we
>>are.
>
>I can't disagree with any of this.

I forgot Italy - Meloni got voted in precisely as a reaction against the
attempted introduction of so called progressive policies.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:25:49 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>On 2024-04-10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:51:56 -0000 (UTC)
>> Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
>>>On 2024-04-09, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> I've not addressed myself to that topic whatsoever, let alone revealed
>>>> a position.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He is easily confused - not worth arguing with.
>>
>> If no argument then
>> patronise
>> end if
>
>Finally, you are correct. There is indeed no argument with you. The
>purpose of an argument is to persuade position changes, using reason.

When you find any reasoning for your position do let me know.

>Why a reasoned position might change is that the reasoning was not
>adequately informed in some important point, or contained a mistake; but
>a it's a fool's errand to use reason to try to change an unreasoned
>position.

Smug superiority does you no favours.

In article <uv83bq$1il3f$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
....
>>I can't disagree with any of this.
>
>I forgot Italy - Meloni got voted in precisely as a reaction against the
>attempted introduction of so called progressive policies.
>

And Virginia. Youngkin ran on "anti-woke".

And Florida...

--
Every time a Republican gets caught doing something illegal (i.e., just about every
day or two), they always immediately issue two simultaneous statements about it:
1) "I didn't do it" (Standard denial, which of course only cult-members pay any attention to)
2) "Here's how I did it and why I did it and why it shouldn't matter to you and why you should go back to watching sports on TV"

On 11.04.2024 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:21:32 -0000 (UTC)
> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>> In article <uv6abh$11f3e$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:46:52 -0000 (UTC)
>>>
>>> The reason woke became so prevelant is because people were too timid to
>>> fight it where it mattered. The end result is it caused polarisation
>>> between left and right and the US ended up with Trump, Poland ended up
>>> with a reactionary right wing government and Hungary still has one.
>>> All this could have been avoided if the grown ups on the left had told
>>> the so called "progressive" kidults who were only ever a tiny minority
>>> to STFU but they didn't because they were and are cowards. And here we
>>> are.
>>
>> I can't disagree with any of this.
>
> I forgot Italy - Meloni got voted in precisely as a reaction against the
> attempted introduction of so called progressive policies.

Rightist populists and neo-fascists grow all over Europe these days.

I disagree with the (simplistic) argument that "progressive" policies
would imply such evolution. Decades long "conservative" populism made
the substrate for such mindset and fostered it! Nowadays they still
seem to think that if instead of "progressive" policies they'd follow
the rightists mindset they would be the party who get the rightists
populists votes. Instead, of course, the rightists get yet more votes
since they effectively got affirmed by such tactical appeasement moves.

I agree that topics like the before mentioned "inclusive language"
types of policies provide an easy entry that can be exploited by the
rightist populists for their goals. I also agree that such themes have
the property to contribute to (and probably to foster) polarization.

[ followup-to alt.politics.international ] (That I don't read :-)

Janis

I sure am glad Google turned off their spam hose. It makes the other
spam shine that much brighter!

On 08.04.2024 19:54, Javier wrote:
>
> I don't worry about that anymore. My bash scripts run blazing fast
> in my laptop with an SSD.

If speed would be an issue you could also switch to faster POSIX
shells than Bash, like Ksh.

But speed very much depend on the tasks you actually do with them.
Sometimes Shells are "misused".

> I guess it was an issue at the time Perl
> appeared (1987), although TBH I didn't experience it myself, since at
> that time I wasn't a Unix user.
>
> Also, I suspect HD caching and the increase in HD speed was one of the
> reasons for the fall in popularity of Perl for writing small system
> automation tasks that could be done with just shell. But there were
> another reasons, like the disapearance of diversity in the Unix OS ecosystem.
> Perl made easy to write portable scripts that could run on propietary Unixen
> that came with slight incompatibilities in the command line tools
> (IRIX/Solaris/HP-UX/AIX, etc.)

Some notes...
You have the portability only if you use the same version on all
target systems.
To write scripts portably you use standards; like POSIX (including
the POSIX shells).
I suppose there's no Perl standard yet?
You may not have Perl in professional environments available (for
security considerations, maintenance decisions, policies).

>
> Perhaps somebody here who uses (or used to use) Perl for system
> automation tasks can tell us more about their personal reasons
> for prefering (or used to prefer) Perl over shell.

I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.
Some more or less obvious reasons I see...
Abstraction of diverse Unix utilities' interfaces.
Supporting data structures (beyond primitive arrays).
Expressiveness.
Extensive libraries and supporting solutions available.
One tool instead of a tool chest. (A simplified view, granted.)
Less quirks than Shell. (I'm saying that as a decades long and
experienced Shell programmer.)
I'm reluctant to speak about Shell's crude syntax as one reason,
since I also dislike Perl's.

Janis

On 07.04.2024 05:46, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 00:01:43 +0000, Javier wrote:
>>
>>> The downside is the loss of performance because of disk access for
>>> trivial things like 'nfiles=$(ls | wc -l)'.
>>
>> Well, you could save one process creation by writing
>> “nfiles=$(echo * | wc -l)” instead. But that would still not be strictly
>> correct.
>
> If that saves a process, it's because echo is builtin.

You can use only built-ins, e.g. along the line of

set * ; nfiles=$#

(It's not only faster but also has less issues.)

Janis

> But it will set
> $nfiles to 1 (unless you happen to have files with newlines in their
> names). Both skip hidden files, which may or may not be what you want.
>
> [...]
>