GP’s “Ascenseur pour l’Échafaud” means “elevator for the gallows.” I think they are familiar with the composition, you might be missing the point of their comment.

Parent is asserting that this in a generic title for film music. While others might have, That's not the way the artist used it. He used it like a proper noun specific to that composition.

Big Egg

I think everyone says “couldn’t care less”. But Wiktionary does say “could care less” is “American, nonstandard, proscribed”, so I guess only Americans have that (defective) alternative phrase.

There are a few things like that which stand out when I'm watching/listening to American media.

Another is 'on accident'.

What is ISE?

I mean Indian Standard English here.

I have never heard of a thing called “Indian Standard English”, nor (as an Australian who has moved to India) does it sound a very realistic concept. Can’t find any search results for it as a phrase, either.

Sometimes used as a term in linguistics.

Put it in quotes: "Indian Standard English" and you will see plenty of results.

https://www.google.com/?q=%22Indian+Standard+English%22

https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/eww.24...

It doesn't mean a written standard exists.

Maybe it's called Standard Indian English or just Indian English in other contexts; I'm only using a term I've seen used.

For comparison: <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22indian+standard+english%22>, exactly zero results.

OK

The behavior is agnostic of the endianness of the target platform.

    cond1 ? res1 :
    cond2 ? res2 :
    cond3 ? res3 :
    or_else_res

If they are truly nested, then that is confusing. But if you have an if-else chain, then it can be quite readable.

Or they could just ask granddaddy for advice:

  (cond (cond1 res1)
        (cond2 res2)
        (cond3 res3)
        (t     else_res))

=)

An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age...

I find that so much harder to read compared to if/else or case/when in ruby.

The ? is basically an attempt to use fewer if/else, at the cost of condensed if-else like structure. I always need to look at both parts after the ? whereas in a single if or elsif I don't. case/when in ruby is even better here e. g. regex check:

   def foo(i)
     case i
     when /^cat/
       handle_cats
     when /^dog/
       handle_dogs

(I ommitted the "end"s here to just focus on the conditional logic.)

or

  if cond1 then res1
  else if cond2 then res2
  else if cond3 then res3
  else or_else_res

or

  if cond1 then res1
  elif cond2 then res2
  elif cond3 then res3
  else or_else_res

what is most lua-like?

As programmers in programming culture, we have a distinction between hacker and, potentially, cracker that no ordinary person has. ESR’s prescriptivism is pretty much worthless in this respect: words mean what people think they mean and what people use them for, and programmers do not have a monopoly on how people use the term.

OED has the “computer intruder” sense first cited in 1963, and the “enthusiastic programmer” sense first in 1969 (“now much less common than sense 3a”). Cracker first appears in 1968.

Besides, it is easy to disambiguate which meaning people mean. “Hacker attack” can only refer to the common usage of the term, not programming-culture usage.

Thanks for highlighting the even earlier term from 1963. If that is the case, then why don't journalists use the word "computer intruder" instead of hacker, when it's less a catchall?

The funny thing about these comments is that most of the replies to my comment have been more defensive than my own. I wasn't suggesting a monopoly on the term, and I wasn't suggesting "hacker" shouldn't be ever be used. I just said it's not very accurate, and the average non-technical reader may not know the difference.

I think you misunderstood. The 1963 term is "hacker", and its 1963 meaning is "computer intruder". I.e. the journalists are using the earlier definition and the definition referred to by "Hacker News" came later.

Ah, I see now that journos were referring to the older definition of hacker. I suppose newer interpretations have a ways to go in gaining acceptance, though I am not sure why the phrase hacker/cracker is even used, when other words could be used too, like tamperer (for intrusion) and tinkerer (for non-builder/non-intruder (i.e. on their own equipment, or a lab's equipment, and learner). Kind of like the phrase "me and the gang," although that word might never gain a total conversion, nor should.

Where did you leave to?

If you want ‘git diff | pager’ to work like that, you’re out of luck. There is no way for the pager to communicate with git or the shell to rerun the command; the pager doesn’t even know what program is on the writing side of its stdin pipe. You would need something like ‘pager --command "git diff"’, where the pager invokes a command producing output. I do agree that it would be nice.

Pronounced octópodes, /ɒkˈtɒpədiːz/, with the -es rhyming with Heracles etc.