Edit: it's very likely that no photos exist because the tapes were being reused and there are many reasons why the camera has been nonfunctional for a long time now.
Captured on Kodak film, I suspect.
Edit: it's very likely that no photos exist because the tapes were being reused and there are many reasons why the camera has been nonfunctional for a long time now.
Captured on Kodak film, I suspect.
https://petapixel.com/how-steve-sasson-invented-the-digital-...
https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/09/Prorotype-Digit...
[1] https://petapixel.com/how-steve-sasson-invented-the-digital-...
I was glad to hear Sasson found a place at Eastman-Kodak and worked there for the rest of his career.
Unifont seems to have about the same glyph coverage as my system default CJK font (unfortunately I don't know what it is).
Another example would be emoji, which would probably now be considered "basic" by most people but have always been in a supplemental plane.
Deleted Comment
Only things I disagree with:
- The out-parameter of strclone. How annoying! I don't think this adds information. Just return a pointer, man. (And instead of defending against the possibility that someone is doing some weird string pooling, how about jut disallow that - malloc and free are your friends.)
- Avoiding void. As mentioned in another comment, it's useful for polymorphism. You can do quite nice polymorphic code in C and then you end up using void a lot.
The solution, in my opinion, is to either document that strclone()'s return should be free()'d, or alternately add a strfree() declaration to the header (which might just be `#define strfree(x) free(x)`).
Adding a `char **out` arg does not, in my opinion, document that the pointer should be free()'d.
The reason is floating point precision errors, sure, but that check is not going to solve the problems.
Took a difference of two numbers with large exponents, where the result should be algebraically zero but isn't quite numerically? Then this check fails to catch it. Took another difference of two numbers with very small exponents, where the result is not actually algebraically zero? This check says it's zero.
Care to explain the reference? Do people dress up like a character from the TV show and help out people or what's going on?
During disaster work, you see swarms of recovery workers and the joke/reference being made is that this looks like Naruto doing a "shadow clone" technique.
[0] https://i.redd.it/psseu93j62la1.jpg [1] https://sendai-resilience.jp/media/images/efforts/case31_ima...
There was strong cultural pressure to be able to write perl in as few bytes as possible, ideally as a CLI one-liner. Books[1] were written on the topic.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/perl-one-liners-130-programs-t...
That's fine by me. The informative posts are worth it.