palordrolap

This reminds me of a (specific) storyline in a once-popular strip by a now-disgraced author.

Which is a good thing.

Despite this very comment proving the similarity, it’s good to know there are at least oblique ways to replace it without being clumsy about it.

She has also styled the dog’s coat to match her hair.

I think the idea is that in panels two and three Nancy seems to be plotting something far sinister.

What spoils the joke a bit is that it’s an atrocious haircut for a dog, so expectations aren’t perhaps as subverted as they could be.

If that’s how it’s supposed to work, there’d be no point in the CC field at all, would there?

CC is not for ignoring. It’s for your information even if you’re not an intended participant in the conversation. i.e. you’re supposed to at least read it.

Copilot copilotted your Copilot. Something something marklar.

I had a colleague who deliberately ignored anything that didn’t have his name in the To: field.

Sometimes it bit him on the rear, metaphorically speaking, but most of the time it worked. To everyone else’s annoyance.

Why did you post the same comic twice?

(I shouldn’t need a /s here but you get this parenthetical to, er, labour the point.)

Ah. I see you have also been monitoring British politics.

Comedy sketch that takes this in a slightly different direction but with similar results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtm4mbtPOgk

Back in the 1960s there was a kind of car called a Bubble Car. They had a front-opening door, that is, the door and windscreen were one, and it opened up, out and to the left. The cars also had no reverse gear.

It was thus possible to get into a state where you’d driven right up to the back wall of a garage and were then completely unable to get out.

The car wasn’t broken and otherwise worked normally. If there’d been a radio in there, that would have still worked. The seat didn’t suddenly become uncomfortable, etc. Nonetheless, the user was stuck.

What’s the point of this anecdote? Well, a computer that can be fixed by rebooting was in a state like that bubble car stuck against the back wall of the garage.

Unfortunately, with the car, there was no equivalent reset to get back outside the garage again, and usually resulted in the user screaming for help.

…and then he died.

Frankly, I’m surprised an old-school juggernaut like Zawinski doesn’t already have his own mail server. It’s not like he lacks the technical ability to set one up.

Are you sure that’s not pre-Python? Maybe one of David Frost’s shows like At Last the 1948 Show or The Frost Report.

Marty Feldman (the customer) wasn’t one of the Pythons, and the comments on the video suggest that Graham Chapman took on the customer role when the Pythons performed it. (Which, if they did, suggests that Cleese may have written it, in order for him to have been allowed to take it with him.)

Actually yes, but I didn’t expect they’d go down the same avenues with the Pi.

I actually considered getting one of the computer-in-keyboard versions precisely because I’m of that same generation, but I couldn’t justify the expense.

Edit: It has come to my attention that it isn’t actually the people behind the Pi doing this. I really should read more rather than jumping to conclusions. There’s a few obvious rewrites I could make, but I think the prediction at the end is still valid even if the route I took wasn’t the right one.

This would appear to indicate that someone in charge of product design at Pi HQ is a Gen X-er or Boomer desperate to relive computing history through their own products.

Computer on a board. Bigger computer on a board. Computer entirely within a keyboard.

And now a computer in a PC-like case.

Prediction: The next step will be some kind of ARM-based cloud service.

Emotional daaaaa

Internet memes had led me to believe that the correct verb and noun in this scenario are, respectively, “tonguepunch” and “fartbox”.

This is the limit of my knowledge on this topic and it’ll likely stay that way.

5 - 3 = 2. So I have ten buckets. Checkmate!

Had to look up the logical fallacy because I thought there must be a name for it. It’s called “affirming the consequent” or “fallacy of the converse” among other names.

The real question might be whether the compiler was smart enough to change var++ and var-- into ++var and --var when the initial values aren’t needed.

As compiler optimisations go, it’s a fairly obvious one, but it was 1974 and putting checks like that in the compiler would increase its size and slow it down when both space and time were at a premium.

cookiemonsternomnomnom.gif