The Polish language is notorious for being hard to learn. Nothing further from the truth. Today, I will show you how you can communicate effectively in Polish using one word only. That magic word is 'pieprzyć', which may mean sprinkling your food with pepper ('pieprz' in Polish) or a sexual intercourse (obviously). The pronunciation is something like 'pie -psh' - the 'pie' pronounced like 'Pie' in the name 'Pierre'. Note: all of these are mildly offensive in Polish, and wouldn't be used in polite conversations. Here we go:
Really? - Nie pieprz.
Don't make me laugh! - Nie pieprz!
You are joking! - Pieprzysz!
Run away! - Spieprzaj!
Leave this room! - Wypieprzaj!
Did you steal it? - Zapieprzyłeś to?
Start now! - Zapieprzaj!
Work hard! - Zapieprzaj!
He messed it up! - On to spieprzył!
Everything goes to hell - Wszystko się pieprzy
They beat us (in a sports game, or physically) - Dopieprzyli nam (w grze, albo fizycznie)
Hit him - Przypieprz mu
I have a hell of a headache - Ale mnie głowa napieprza
What a hectic day it was! - Ale był zapieprz dzisiaj!
Leave me alone! - Odpieprz się!
You are talking nonsense! - Pieprzysz głupoty.
... and my favourite, because it was used by the late Lech Kaczyński and accurately demonstrates the attitude of his Law and Justice (PiS) party towards those who don't agree with them:
Piss off, you old git! - Spieprzaj dziadu!
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
A new generation of defensive weapons
I'm thinking some weapons that we still make, and take for granted their usefulness, are going to become obsolete in the next big war, such as horses became obsolete by the end of WW2. I'm thinking about tanks, ships, helicopters, maybe even rockets. To make it clear: I hope we are smart enough to not allow the next big war to happen.
For example, how would I neutralise a tank?
A small (5-10cm) flying drone with a small hardened part, finds a tank and lands inside its gun barrel. From here I see two possibilities: it could latch itself to the inside of the gun to prevent firing of the gun or it could wait until the hatch opens and then get inside the turret to neutralise the crew. That's it, either no explosives, just a small, hard part, in a place where it shouldn't be or a small explosive detonated when it would hurt most.
The small size of the drone protects it from being detected and destroyed. It could even fly in a zig-zag fashion like a mosquito or a fly - it does not have to be particularly fast.
How to neutralise a helicopter? Maybe make the drone land on its tail-rotor and either jam it or damage it by a small explosion. In general, use small size and great manoeuvrability to attack where the helicopter is most vulnerable.
How to destroy fast moving objects like airplanes and rockets? By using something that is ultimately fast: laser shoots at 300,000 km/s. Calculating the angles and firing is an ideal job for a radar/computer. How to detect stealth planes? Maybe by creating a virtual net from solar/battery powered radar/camera drones permanently patrolling the sky. If some of them had lasers on board, the system might be even more effective.
For example, how would I neutralise a tank?
A small (5-10cm) flying drone with a small hardened part, finds a tank and lands inside its gun barrel. From here I see two possibilities: it could latch itself to the inside of the gun to prevent firing of the gun or it could wait until the hatch opens and then get inside the turret to neutralise the crew. That's it, either no explosives, just a small, hard part, in a place where it shouldn't be or a small explosive detonated when it would hurt most.
The small size of the drone protects it from being detected and destroyed. It could even fly in a zig-zag fashion like a mosquito or a fly - it does not have to be particularly fast.
How to neutralise a helicopter? Maybe make the drone land on its tail-rotor and either jam it or damage it by a small explosion. In general, use small size and great manoeuvrability to attack where the helicopter is most vulnerable.
How to destroy fast moving objects like airplanes and rockets? By using something that is ultimately fast: laser shoots at 300,000 km/s. Calculating the angles and firing is an ideal job for a radar/computer. How to detect stealth planes? Maybe by creating a virtual net from solar/battery powered radar/camera drones permanently patrolling the sky. If some of them had lasers on board, the system might be even more effective.
Clean Code by Robert C. Martin
Subtitle: A handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship. First published in 2008.
One of the core programming books. All code examples are in Java.
Functions:
Should do one thing only.
One level of abstraction per function: making the code read like a top-down list of TO instructions is an effective technique to achieve that (the Stepdown Rule):
For example, for a non-configurable dashboard I could write:
"To create a Home Dashboard, get the System Status traffic light, Devices/Users vertical bar chart, and Workflow Pipeline horizontal bar chart."
The ideal number of arguments for a function is zero.
niladic - 0 arguments
monadic - 1 (monads)
dyadic - 2 (dyads)
triadic - 3 (triads)
polyadic - 3+ do not use
Why? More arguments = harder to read, harder to test: lots of combinations.
Flat, output arguments, and flags - ugly, confusing, terrible.
If your function needs to change the state of something, let it be the state of its owning object.
Temporal coupling - when a function can only be called at certain times.
Not having boolean arguments: but a boolean argument could prevent duplication: but the duplication can be solved by creating another function.
Because a function should do only one thing and a function with try/catch is doing error handling, it should only do error handling, i.e. in the try section it should just call one subfunction and in the catch it should handle all possible exceptions.
My argument against exceptions: they are like GOTO of old: arbitrarily move execution somewhere else in code. Also, handling exceptions in separate functions, as recommended, leads to abstraction leakage: the exception may be from many layers down.
My argument against small functions with only one or two arguments: class count and stack depth explosion: lots more classes, lots more layers.
My argument against "comments are always failures": comments are necessary when explaining the path taken: why did we code it this way. The author clarifies that a few pages later: intent comments are good.
G31: hidden temporal coupling - when functions must be executed in order, but they don't use arguments/return values to show it. Have fun debugging that. :-)
One of the core programming books. All code examples are in Java.
Functions:
Should do one thing only.
One level of abstraction per function: making the code read like a top-down list of TO instructions is an effective technique to achieve that (the Stepdown Rule):
For example, for a non-configurable dashboard I could write:
"To create a Home Dashboard, get the System Status traffic light, Devices/Users vertical bar chart, and Workflow Pipeline horizontal bar chart."
The ideal number of arguments for a function is zero.
niladic - 0 arguments
monadic - 1 (monads)
dyadic - 2 (dyads)
triadic - 3 (triads)
polyadic - 3+ do not use
Why? More arguments = harder to read, harder to test: lots of combinations.
Flat, output arguments, and flags - ugly, confusing, terrible.
If your function needs to change the state of something, let it be the state of its owning object.
Temporal coupling - when a function can only be called at certain times.
Not having boolean arguments: but a boolean argument could prevent duplication: but the duplication can be solved by creating another function.
Because a function should do only one thing and a function with try/catch is doing error handling, it should only do error handling, i.e. in the try section it should just call one subfunction and in the catch it should handle all possible exceptions.
My argument against exceptions: they are like GOTO of old: arbitrarily move execution somewhere else in code. Also, handling exceptions in separate functions, as recommended, leads to abstraction leakage: the exception may be from many layers down.
My argument against small functions with only one or two arguments: class count and stack depth explosion: lots more classes, lots more layers.
My argument against "comments are always failures": comments are necessary when explaining the path taken: why did we code it this way. The author clarifies that a few pages later: intent comments are good.
Do not return null.
Side effects are evil.
Funny parts:
G25: Replace magic numbers with named constants, except for well known numbers like 5280: "the number 5280 is so very well known and so unique a constant that readers would recognize it even if it stood alone on a page with no context surrounding it."
Side effects are evil.
Funny parts:
G25: Replace magic numbers with named constants, except for well known numbers like 5280: "the number 5280 is so very well known and so unique a constant that readers would recognize it even if it stood alone on a page with no context surrounding it."
Really? If you belong to the 95% of the world population using the metric system (everyone, except the US, Myanmar, and Liberia), 5280 is a magic number to you. It is the number of feet in a mile.
G31: hidden temporal coupling - when functions must be executed in order, but they don't use arguments/return values to show it. Have fun debugging that. :-)
Friday, January 27, 2017
Funny Polish Words
My pre-teen son bursts laughing from time to time when he overhears me speaking Polish. Usually, at first I don't understand why, and then it hits me.
When I say in Polish "Jak?" (Why?), he hears "yuck".
When I say "blady" (pale), he hears "bloody".
When I say "skarpetki" (socks), he hears "scar-pet-key".
When I say "pół" (half), he hears "poo-w".
When I say "fart" (luck), he hears "fart".
:-)
When I say in Polish "Jak?" (Why?), he hears "yuck".
When I say "blady" (pale), he hears "bloody".
When I say "skarpetki" (socks), he hears "scar-pet-key".
When I say "pół" (half), he hears "poo-w".
When I say "fart" (luck), he hears "fart".
:-)
Friday, November 18, 2016
Sydney
A practical tip: on Sundays the public transport in Sydney is capped at $2.50, so you can travel on the trains, ferries, and buses around Sydney practically for free.
 |
| Old and new. |
 |
| A model of the CBD under the glass floor of the Sydney library |
 |
| A monument to a pioneer woman |
 |
| Queen Victoria Building - a 19th century shopping centre. |
 |
| Darling Harbour |
 |
| Brutalist architecture near the Sydney Harbour Bridge. |
 |
| The Rocks - Sydney's old town. |
 |
| The Rocks |
 |
| The Rocks Museum documents history of the native people of the Sydney area. |
 |
| Behind Circular Quay |
 |
| Sydney ferries |
 |
| On a ferry to Parramatta |
 |
| On a ferry to Parramatta, the river quickly becomes narrower. |
 |
| A typical double-decker Sydney train. |
 |
| CBD packed tight. |
 |
| A cruise ship "parked" right in the centre of Sydney - Circular Quay |
 |
| The view of the Opera House from the bridge on a rainy day. |
 |
| People sitting in the lower deck have a good view of other people's feet and knees. |
 |
| Sydney train from a ferry. |
 |
| Sydney Trains A set from the front. |
 |
| A postcard from Sydney |
 |
| Postcard #2 - Darling Harbour |
 |
| Maritime Museum |
 |
| Sam Fiszman was a Polish Jew who after the war settled in Australia and was active in the Labor Party. A park overlooking Bondi beach bears his name and features his credo: "I am better than no man and no man is better than I". I'm not a fan of that credo - the first part sounds stupid: almost everyone alive is better than Hitler or Stalin, the second part sounds like an excuse for any wrong thing you might do. |
 |
| Postcard #3 |
 |
| Two Canberra class landing-helicopter-dock (LHD) ships of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN): built in Spain and in Australia. |
 |
| The middle section of a WW2 Japanese midget submarine. |
 |
| A humorous take on Australian Navy. |
 |
| Self-deprecation is part of Australian culture. |
 |
| Postcard #4 - a view from the top of Garden Island |
 |
| Australia had and has strict immigration policies, including sometimes deportation of whole groups of people. For another example see: Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901 |
 |
| I didn't know that Australia took part in occupation of Japan. |
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Currumbin Swell Festival 2016
Bad weather = good parking. Beach art 2016 from Gold Coast. First the oversized turtle and deck chairs:
Then my favourites, this one for the little story that went with it:
 |
| Patricia Hoffie & David Sawtell - "Kyoto Protocol Revenant" |
These bikes worked as a windmill with 4 little passengers:
 |
| Village Bike - "Wind in the Wheelos" |
A lot of work went into welding these chains into masks, they are smooth to touch:
 |
| Mike Van Dam - "Life is a Masquerade" |
Scrap metal pigeons with the inflatable turtle in the background:
 |
| Dave Hickson - "Pigeons for Peace" |
 |
| Ben Carroll - "Nothing But Time" |
Saturday, August 20, 2016
NTV Mir - 18 Aug 2016 - Another Lie
I've caught another lie of Russian TV yesterday in NTV's Mir news from 18.08.2016 transmitted by Australian SBS on 19.08.2016.
In the segment about possible moving of atomic weapons from Turkey to Romania, around 4:45 mark, the station tells its viewers:
"[...] experts remind that even during Cold War, in Romania, as in other Warsaw Pact countries, there were no Soviet nuclear weapons".
There were.
Prior to the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union maintained large amounts of troops on Polish territory. These troops were equipped with nuclear weapons.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union altogether 3,000 Soviet nuclear weapons were withdrawn from Central Europe – 2,100 warheads for ground forces and 900 for the air force, among them SS-21, Scud and SS-23 missile warheads; nuclear artillery; and nuclear bombs. Moscow started the deployment of these weapons in the late 1960s. The majority of Soviet nuclear weapons were stationed in East Germany (16 sites) but there were nuclear weapons in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)