It seems likely that the NSA is running a large fraction of tor nodes, and doing exactly what you suggest. It would cost a trivial fraction of their budget, and yield huge amounts of relevant information.
"In other words, they simply didn't test their (global!) custom route announcement management software. An edge case was triggered in production, and unsurprisingly they automatically went offline."
This is completely unnecessary. Everything git does, git can undo as long as your working tree is clean when you start the rebase. git reflog and git reset are your friends, if you want to "get back to where I was before I started this awful merge".
I can't trust git stash anymore. I mistyped something and it blew away a lot lot lot of work. So now I just commit stuff. If I want to get rid of the commit, I can follow it up with a reset.
Not true. From the git stash man page: "If you mistakenly drop or clear stashes, they cannot be recovered through the normal safety mechanisms."
Git stash is more dangerous than other git commands, and I've personally witnessed more people losing work with stash accidents than with commit accidents. There may be plumbing commands that can get you there like fsck but the fact of the matter is you are better off committing or branching, from a safety standpoint.
> There are some people who appreciate games that are very abstract and with
> simple rules from which complex behavior emerges, such as a game like Go.
I love Go, but I despise perl. Perl is not built on "very abstract and simple rules. For instance, this code is quite hard to reason about:
1: my @to-infinity-and-beyond = 0, 2 … ∞;
2: say @to-infinity-and-beyond[1008];
# OUTPUT:
# 2016
This is self-indulgent mucking around. An inference procedure which goes from "0, 2 … ∞" to "the even-nonnegative integers" is bound to lead to unpleasant and hard-to-debug surprises.
I'm confused. What's so hard to reason about that? It's very obvious that it prints 2016. Maybe "infinite lazy lists" isn't something that most mainstream languages consider, but honestly, they're very handy and hardly "self-indulgent mucking about."
(Though I'd probably use an asterisk instead of the infinity symbol)
Indeed, if we're going to hold up Haskell as an exemplar of simplicity—which, in its philosophy if not always in its implementation, I think it is—then we can hardly ding Perl for including lazy lists!
What you consider "self-indulgent mucking around" others may call "declarative programming". I can appreciate that you don't like it, but I think you've missed my point.
> These people tend to be drawn towards programming languages that are built out of small pieces with a consistent philosophy from the ground up, such as lisp or Haskell.
If you like go and dislike perl its to his point.
A TLDR (because apparently); People who like games that are complex because of complex rules like perl. People who like complex games with simple rules dislike it.
GP was emphatically not saying that Perl 6 is the abstract and simple one. GP was saying those qualities apply to Go and are what make some personalities like Go more than P6. You like the Go qualities and not the P6 ones; QED.
If you want a real reason to be astonished, the bit with "INIT now" is run at a completely different time than the rest of the interpolation, apparently.
