Abs

spacejewfromhell:

C:

#define ABS(x) ((x) < 0 ? -(x) : (x))

C++:

template<typename T> T abs(T x)
{ if(x < 0) return -x; else return x;
}

Haskell:

abs :: (Num a, Ord a) => a -> a
abs x | x < 0 = -x | otherwise = x

Go:

type Top interface{}
func abs(x Top) Top { switch x.(type){ case...

Actually in Go it’s like this (straight from the math package):

func Abs(x float64) float64

func abs(x float64) float64 {
    switch {
    case x < 0:
        return -x
    case x == 0:
        return 0 // return correctly abs(-0)
    }
    return x
}

2 days ago 10 notes URL
  Tags golang
Comments


mishavonsalome:

True Detective 

mishavonsalome:

True Detective 

2 days ago 67 notes URL
  Tags true detective quote
Comments


(Source: skunkbear, via writerman272)

6 days ago 35,009 notes URL
  Tags stats
Comments


Martin vs Erikson: a few observations

writerman272:

shonelikethesun:

writerman272:

shonelikethesun:

writerman272:

shonelikethesun:

I am a great fan of Steven Erikson. The Malazan cycle is the best ever written bar none. I like Martin too, just not as much as Erikson.

With that said, it may seem that the two authors have a lot in common: they write fantasy that goes against many of the genre clichés,…

I agree with almost every point but I do think that the Red Wedding had less impact than certain scenes in the MBOTF. *Spoilers* The end of the chain of dogs I feel had greater emotional impact. (probably because i’m such a malazan fanboy but hear me out). That DESTROYED the main cast of the Wickans. It was a lesson in futility when you had to watch what happened to coltaine, and how it was resolved with Squint. The fact that you had to sit there and experience the horror, and how it continued onwards with Dukier. Another point of pure horror and a feeling of “Why” is the death of Onos T’oolan in Dust of Dreams, and the subsequent Hetan sequence. (Look on Tor.com re read, the first comment of this thread is by Erikson himself explaining why he did this http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/03/malazan-reread-of-the-fallen-on-hetan-the-barghast-and-the-portrayal-of-torture-in-fantasy-fiction ). Martin has been able to create a persona of not letting any character be safe from death. Yet I feel that Steven was able to take that premise, and expand it to whole peoples and put it on a scale that dwarfs ASOIAF. Erikson was able to make us sympathize with those who were despicable, most notably I feel with Kallor. Martin has really only made us care for the good guys. That is, I feel the greatest gulf between the two. Both have good stories. Erikson has the story that makes you question the line of “good” and “Evil”. Also fuck Joffrey. We can all agree on that.

I 90% agree with you. Still, the Red Wedding was raw and actually wiped out a whole faction, the one where the hopes to overthrow the Lannisters mainly rested. Yes there are other Starks around but none in power of anything; as with the Wickans, not all dead but without the only, and best, leader.

<

p>But the main point about the Red Wedding was that from that scene Martin started to kill off characters just for the show. It is the turning point of the series so far. A bit like the night in Malaz City with Laseen and the Bonehunters: that was the beginning of the second part of the MBOTF, even if probably nobody realised on the first read. As usual with Erikson he didn’t tell you what was happening, you had to get it, later more often than sooner. Martin is only hard to guess what’s going to happen, obviously as if wasn’t so he’d be a poor writer. But we all get the whys. He’s pretty straightforward.

I agree it was a lesson in futility but I still feel that if we are going for that raw feeling of despair, which you mentioned before as well, that nothing really can top the death of Trull. And I feel that perhaps the faction wipe was not a good thing for the series. It was a moment that will live forever in the series and really galvanized the fan base, but despite that perhaps its less, real. That has really been my problem with the series in general I feel. The characterization of the people who live in that world are so unbelievable. Joffery’s actions personify this. The characters so often feel flat in their roles and very rarely do any change their ways significantly. (They usually die instead). The faction wipe not only wiped the potential cast, but I feel that it wasn’t used as much of a springboard for character growth for others to see how the world is so much as a plot device to shock people and to quickly get rid of people that needed to not be around.

Exactly that. Martin kills people to get more audience and because he’s done with those characters. Everything boils down to the show, the plot, not the meaning as with Erikson.

I don’t think removing the Starks from the war was a bad move. It surprised the readers, obviously, and introduced the period of the story where everything seems to go bad. Meaning, the Lannisters seem to have it way too easy. The bad guys. Like in LOTR between the supposed death of Gandalf and the battle of Helm’s Deep: the reader had the feeling that the world was going to end with the forces of evil triumphing. It’s a preparatory step for the hero to come and save the day. In LOTR the hero(s) were Aragorn, Gandalf and Frodo, in Martin, so far, Tyrion and Jon Snow. There’s no such a comparison possible with Erikson. Both Coltaine’s and Trull’s deaths come when things seemed to end well. With their deaths the readers are left unsatisfied, without justice, partly hopeless. Exactly what Erikson meant and how he works: meaning before plot. Coltaine would have been a great hero to lead the malazans till the very end; instead he chose Tavore, a anti-heroine. This is why I love Erikson, he’s so wary of not falling into the same old patterns of the genre and also so much more deep than any other fantasy writer out there that one can only read his pages in awe. With the possible exception of Bakker who, unfortunately, tends to show off his intelligence way too much, lacking Erikson’s humility.

I agree Erikson is my favorite author for that reason. I think Martin giving the Lannisters things way to easy is perhaps his most realistic portrayal of people. The good guy’s shouldn’t always be the ones to win. In war, it’s about who is more prepared. The starks were thrown into everything whilst the Lannisters made it a point to control as much as possible in order to be able to have the power to rule if needed. It is a good point of order. Though I would say that perhaps, out of everyone, Fiddler is the protagonist of the MBOTF. He is not the most vital, he is not the most powerful or worthy, yet he is with us to the end. He is the somewhat everyman (yes he does have crazy experiences but its tempered over time) that the reader can connect and he is in both the beginning and ending scenes of the entire series. Fiddler, is perhaps the juxtaposition of all the insanity of the series, a guy who joined a cause and survived through it all. He is simultaneously unnotable in the grand scheme of things being in the center of it all with little actual physical power compared to say Rake, yet without him nothing would have been possible. The bonehunters would have sustained heavy losses if he hadn’t saved the Spiritwalkers grandchildren and gotten a gift in return. The squads wouldn’t have had his guidance and leadership until the end. Tavore wouldn’t have had the reading happen in Dust of Dreams. Integral, yet not in the spotlight. That’s how I feel about the series. Erikson has crafted perhaps the best epic fantasy series of all time (my personal opinion) yet he has not recieved acclaim, because of how grand in scope it is. The series is an important part of fantasy literature history yet is not as well known.

I think we could say the same about Quick Ben. He’s basically the mastermind behind the Bridgeburners and their actions. Or Ganoes Paran, without whom I don’t think the very last battle could have been won. Actually it’s a futile exercise to look for a main character in the MBOTF because I believe Erikson didn’t write it with any in mind. As in real history, some characters can be more important than others but no one is the main character of the whole human history. Even Jesus is of little importance in the history of the most populous and biggest continent on earth, Asia.

That’s it I guess, Erikson wrote the very first real fantasy series, literally speaking. It feels real. Not because it’s set in our own world but in a different time, like Tolkien’s works, but because it is so similar to our own history, if there were humanoid races and magic. It’s plausible, even. You couldn’t have expected anything less from an anthropologist after all :)

1 week ago 27 notes URL
  Tags Steven Erikson malazan history fantasy book
Comments


Martin vs Erikson: a few observations

writerman272:

shonelikethesun:

writerman272:

shonelikethesun:

I am a great fan of Steven Erikson. The Malazan cycle is the best ever written bar none. I like Martin too, just not as much as Erikson.

With that said, it may seem that the two authors have a lot in common: they write fantasy that goes against many of the genre clichés,…

I agree with almost every point but I do think that the Red Wedding had less impact than certain scenes in the MBOTF. *Spoilers* The end of the chain of dogs I feel had greater emotional impact. (probably because i’m such a malazan fanboy but hear me out). That DESTROYED the main cast of the Wickans. It was a lesson in futility when you had to watch what happened to coltaine, and how it was resolved with Squint. The fact that you had to sit there and experience the horror, and how it continued onwards with Dukier. Another point of pure horror and a feeling of “Why” is the death of Onos T’oolan in Dust of Dreams, and the subsequent Hetan sequence. (Look on Tor.com re read, the first comment of this thread is by Erikson himself explaining why he did this http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/03/malazan-reread-of-the-fallen-on-hetan-the-barghast-and-the-portrayal-of-torture-in-fantasy-fiction ). Martin has been able to create a persona of not letting any character be safe from death. Yet I feel that Steven was able to take that premise, and expand it to whole peoples and put it on a scale that dwarfs ASOIAF. Erikson was able to make us sympathize with those who were despicable, most notably I feel with Kallor. Martin has really only made us care for the good guys. That is, I feel the greatest gulf between the two. Both have good stories. Erikson has the story that makes you question the line of “good” and “Evil”. Also fuck Joffrey. We can all agree on that.

I 90% agree with you. Still, the Red Wedding was raw and actually wiped out a whole faction, the one where the hopes to overthrow the Lannisters mainly rested. Yes there are other Starks around but none in power of anything; as with the Wickans, not all dead but without the only, and best, leader.

<

p>But the main point about the Red Wedding was that from that scene Martin started to kill off characters just for the show. It is the turning point of the series so far. A bit like the night in Malaz City with Laseen and the Bonehunters: that was the beginning of the second part of the MBOTF, even if probably nobody realised on the first read. As usual with Erikson he didn’t tell you what was happening, you had to get it, later more often than sooner. Martin is only hard to guess what’s going to happen, obviously as if wasn’t so he’d be a poor writer. But we all get the whys. He’s pretty straightforward.

I agree it was a lesson in futility but I still feel that if we are going for that raw feeling of despair, which you mentioned before as well, that nothing really can top the death of Trull. And I feel that perhaps the faction wipe was not a good thing for the series. It was a moment that will live forever in the series and really galvanized the fan base, but despite that perhaps its less, real. That has really been my problem with the series in general I feel. The characterization of the people who live in that world are so unbelievable. Joffery’s actions personify this. The characters so often feel flat in their roles and very rarely do any change their ways significantly. (They usually die instead). The faction wipe not only wiped the potential cast, but I feel that it wasn’t used as much of a springboard for character growth for others to see how the world is so much as a plot device to shock people and to quickly get rid of people that needed to not be around.

Exactly that. Martin kills people to get more audience and because he’s done with those characters. Everything boils down to the show, the plot, not the meaning as with Erikson.

I don’t think removing the Starks from the war was a bad move. It surprised the readers, obviously, and introduced the period of the story where everything seems to go bad. Meaning, the Lannisters seem to have it way too easy. The bad guys. Like in LOTR between the supposed death of Gandalf and the battle of Helm’s Deep: the reader had the feeling that the world was going to end with the forces of evil triumphing. It’s a preparatory step for the hero to come and save the day. In LOTR the hero(s) were Aragorn, Gandalf and Frodo, in Martin, so far, Tyrion and Jon Snow. There’s no such a comparison possible with Erikson. Both Coltaine’s and Trull’s deaths come when things seemed to end well. With their deaths the readers are left unsatisfied, without justice, partly hopeless. Exactly what Erikson meant and how he works: meaning before plot. Coltaine would have been a great hero to lead the malazans till the very end; instead he chose Tavore, a anti-heroine. This is why I love Erikson, he’s so wary of not falling into the same old patterns of the genre and also so much more deep than any other fantasy writer out there that one can only read his pages in awe. With the possible exception of Bakker who, unfortunately, tends to show off his intelligence way too much, lacking Erikson’s humility.

1 week ago 27 notes URL
  Tags Steven Erikson George Martin malazan got fantasy book
Comments


Martin vs Erikson: a few observations

writerman272:

shonelikethesun:

I am a great fan of Steven Erikson. The Malazan cycle is the best ever written bar none. I like Martin too, just not as much as Erikson.

With that said, it may seem that the two authors have a lot in common: they write fantasy that goes against many of the genre clichés,…

I agree with almost every point but I do think that the Red Wedding had less impact than certain scenes in the MBOTF. *Spoilers* The end of the chain of dogs I feel had greater emotional impact. (probably because i’m such a malazan fanboy but hear me out). That DESTROYED the main cast of the Wickans. It was a lesson in futility when you had to watch what happened to coltaine, and how it was resolved with Squint. The fact that you had to sit there and experience the horror, and how it continued onwards with Dukier. Another point of pure horror and a feeling of “Why” is the death of Onos T’oolan in Dust of Dreams, and the subsequent Hetan sequence. (Look on Tor.com re read, the first comment of this thread is by Erikson himself explaining why he did this http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/03/malazan-reread-of-the-fallen-on-hetan-the-barghast-and-the-portrayal-of-torture-in-fantasy-fiction ). Martin has been able to create a persona of not letting any character be safe from death. Yet I feel that Steven was able to take that premise, and expand it to whole peoples and put it on a scale that dwarfs ASOIAF. Erikson was able to make us sympathize with those who were despicable, most notably I feel with Kallor. Martin has really only made us care for the good guys. That is, I feel the greatest gulf between the two. Both have good stories. Erikson has the story that makes you question the line of “good” and “Evil”. Also fuck Joffrey. We can all agree on that.

I 90% agree with you. Still, the Red Wedding was raw and actually wiped out a whole faction, the one where the hopes to overthrow the Lannisters mainly rested. Yes there are other Starks around but none in power of anything; as with the Wickans, not all dead but without the only, and best, leader.

<

p>But the main point about the Red Wedding was that from that scene Martin started to kill off characters just for the show. It is the turning point of the series so far. A bit like the night in Malaz City with Laseen and the Bonehunters: that was the beginning of the second part of the MBOTF, even if probably nobody realised on the first read. As usual with Erikson he didn’t tell you what was happening, you had to get it, later more often than sooner. Martin is only hard to guess what’s going to happen, obviously as if wasn’t so he’d be a poor writer. But we all get the whys. He’s pretty straightforward.

1 week ago 27 notes URL
  Tags Steven erikson George Martin malazan got fantasy book
Comments


Martin vs Erikson: a few observations

I am a great fan of Steven Erikson. The Malazan cycle is the best ever written bar none. I like Martin too, just not as much as Erikson.

With that said, it may seem that the two authors have a lot in common: they write fantasy that goes against many of the genre clichés, they are prone to kill characters nonchalantly, they have lots of blood, war, sex (not so much Erikson in truth) and gritty scenes. They may seem very related as writers. I believe they are only superficially so.

While they have many traits in common, Martin wrote a world that is basically our world with magic, dragons and weird stuff happening. It’s very plain to see that the 7 Kingdoms are medieval Europe and Essos is Asia (the near east, precisely, plus the russian steppes). This is a lot in the tradition of the early fantasy writers who used our past to create their fantasy worlds. Tolkien, LeGuin, Vance all did this, more or less. Erikson’s world is wholly different from ours; it is inspired by it (the Malazans being the Romans, the Seven Cities continent being the Arab world etc.) but it has only elements of it, there’s not a clear connection between any of the continents of the Malazan world and ours. Same as per the people inhabiting it, in Westeros the North is England, Dorne is like Spain or Byzantium, King’s Landing is Rome and so on. Not the same can be said about Erikson’s serie: you have steppes and black people right in the middle of Quon Tali along with redheaded, “scottish” folks. Nomadic people are in every continent, slavery is not (in stark contrast with Martin) and people intermix freely even between humanoids (again, compare this with Martin’s world where everybody weds in his/her own country but for the royals, exactly as in the middle-ages). Erikson and Martin have very different concepts of what a good fantasy book should be like even if their objectives may coincide. Namely, not following the fantasy clichés and writing a story that could be real. Both have succeeded, but in very different ways.

SPOILERS ALERT!

Another similitude between the two authors is their way of killing characters. Lots of. In every book. Malazan fans claim that Erikson’s deaths are more and sadder than Martin’s. The former is true, the latter is too but up to a point. That point is the Red Wedding. Before that I’d say that every death in Westeros was as sad, if not more, than in the Malazan world. Before that scene some important characters died but overall the structure of the story remained fixed: there were the Starks, the Lannisters and Daenerys far away on Essos. Simple. This reflected our own past when there were 2 kingdoms fighting each other with allies of both helping them to win the war. With the Red Wedding that structure was dropped, now there’s nobody to openly oppose the Lannisters. This made the story more unpredictable but also slightly pointless. Martin seems to have taken a turn after the Red Wedding towards killing off characters just for the fun of it. While the Stark’s deaths were indeed sad, I’d say even sadder than most of Malazan’s deaths, after that no death generates the same amount of sadness because the readers have got that Martin is doing it just for the show. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Martin knows where he’s going to and will write a worthy finale (if he’ll ever reach it…). It’s just that no deaths now feels important, everything precipitated since the Starks were put out of the fray and now I feel like he could kill Tyrion or Jon Snow without me shedding any tear (and I love both characters). It’s like he’s playing with his readers now, just to have fun, and this is very detrimental to the story and its quality. Sometimes I feel cheated.

Compare this to Erikson: he kills less important characters than Martin. Whiskeyjack, yes, Trull, yes, Coltaine. Many are thought dead but in truth aren’t, like Kalam and Brys. He never kills off a whole faction as Martin does with the Starks. He does kills in higher numbers, extreme massacres that wipe out entire nations. But he does just to prove his main point, that the world sucks and honest people die by the score while dishonest ones keep living. He instead prefers to highlights the lives of single soldiers and normal folk, making you love them, grow attached to them, and then wiping them out of the story. I bet a lot of you cried at Bottle’s sacrifice for the sake of his comrades, or even at T’Amber, despite being not of the talkative kind. That’s where Erikson surpasses Martin, greatly. In Martin you cry only when somebody who was supposed to be good dies because there’s somebody else who is supposed to be bad. Even if neither are plainly stated it’s extremely obvious that he wants you to hate the Lannisters and love the Starks so whoever dies while opposing the bad guys makes you, obviously, sadder than Joffrey’s death. But are we crying because we loved the character or because of the meaning he/she had in the story? Did any of you cry because Oberyn Martell died or because his death meant Tyrion’s too? The latter I’d say, in both questions.

It’s exactly the same reason why I remember all the deaths in Malazan books while I have already forgot most of GoT’s. In Martin there’s a meaning beneath the story, you feel there’s something good in the world that fights against the evil forces and every death that accomplishes more evil than good is more sorrowful than the others. Nobody cried at Tywin’s death but a lot are angry at the death of a pretty vicious and selfish character as Oberyn was. Exactly because the Martell were opposing the bad ones while Tywin was among them. In the Malazan world there’s not a clear distinction between the good and the evil and it’s not even hinted that there’s a definite thing that can be considered good or bad. People act according to their desires, ambitions and dreams. Whether any of those are good or bad is left to the reader to decide. Like in our own real world. That’s why when Erikson kills some character you feel bad for him or her, because of what kind of person they are in the book and not because that means the evil forces are going to prevail. Because there aren’t evil forces in the first place. And most deaths in Erikson are even unimportant to the development of the story, precisely like 99% of the people who have died in our own world are: uninfluential outside of the small circle of those who knew the deceased. Whiskeyjack dies but the malazans occupy Coral nonetheless. Coltaine dies when the seven cities folks have already been saved; he could have left his warriors protecting the refugees and save himself but as he was an honourable man he fought until the last man and was crucified. Trull Sengar’s death is of little importance for the rest of the story. Yet most of the readers cried at each of these deaths (and if you didn’t, what kind of person are you? :) ). Exactly because they loved the character, regardless of its importance in the big picture.

This is why Erikson is a better writer than Martin. One is all for the show, the other is for the meaning.

And besides, Martin hasn’t yet mastered the art of making characters die in the most stupid ways. Really stupid I mean. Like Trull. Try to kill Tyrion by making him stumble upon a blade and see the internet erupts in rage :)

2 weeks ago 27 notes URL
  Tags a game of thrones got malazan steven erikson george martin writing fantasy book
Comments


D630/blscd

As a ranger fan, blscd looks promising (and faster!). Still pretty raw and with only the basic features but if you want something better than “cd”, there it is.

2 weeks ago URL
  Tags linux ranger blscd file manager
Comments


cjbrowne:

raydelblau:

did-you-kno:

Statistics show that people who take the Myers-Briggs personality test have a 50% chance of falling into a different category if they retake it 5 weeks later. Source

the MBTI is absolute bullshit and i laugh at people who take it seriously 

I’ve been saying this since before it was cool to say this.
There is no such thing as “personality”.  It’s like “talent” and “laziness” - a concept made up to make interpersonal relationships easier at the immense cost of truly understanding other people.
I’m increasingly falling under the impression that “gender” and “sexuality” come under the same umbrella, but I can also understand why some people want to clearly define their gender and sexuality.

cjbrowne:

raydelblau:

did-you-kno:

Statistics show that people who take the Myers-Briggs personality test have a 50% chance of falling into a different category if they retake it 5 weeks later. Source

the MBTI is absolute bullshit and i laugh at people who take it seriously 

I’ve been saying this since before it was cool to say this.

There is no such thing as “personality”.  It’s like “talent” and “laziness” - a concept made up to make interpersonal relationships easier at the immense cost of truly understanding other people.

I’m increasingly falling under the impression that “gender” and “sexuality” come under the same umbrella, but I can also understand why some people want to clearly define their gender and sexuality.

2 weeks ago 3,226 notes URL
  Tags mbti personality
Comments


Dear Malazan fans, please stop depicting Kalam and Quick Ben as white or fairly light skinned. They’re black. Or very dark skinned at least. The Malazan series is the one that does away with most of the fantasy clichés, on purpose, with no sexism, empresses instead of emperors, people of all skin colours hanging together, lesbian soldiers, no dwarves/elves/little people so why can’t you accept that 2 of the most awesome characters don’t look like you, average white male from western countries?

Please accept it.

1 month ago URL
  Tags malazan fantasy cliche fandom
Comments