This is absolutely true. If anything, interactive debuggers are a crutch and actual logging is the real way of debugging. You really can't debug all sorts of things in an interactive debugger, things like timing issues, thread problems, and you certainly can't find the actual hard bugs that are in running services in production, you know, where the bugs actually happen and are found. Or on other people's machines that you can't just attach a debugger. You need good logging with a good logging library that doesn't affect performance too much when it's turned off, and those messages can also provide very useful context to what things are going on, many times as good if not better than a comment, because at least the log messages are compiled in and type checked, as opposed to comments, which can easily go stale.
Both are valid, if your code is slightly complex it's invaluable to run it at least once with a debugger to verify that your logic is all good. And using logs for this is highly inefficient. E.g. if you have huge data structures that are a pain to print, or if after starting the program you notice that you forgot to add some print somewhere needed.
And obviously when you can't hook the debugger, logs are mandatory. Doesn't have to be one or the other.
This is why I trigger a segfault which dumps core at the spot where I had the printf when the conditions aren't what I want, so I can then open the debugger on the core (obviously: not if I have a copy of the input which can recreate it, if so then a debugger with a conditional breakpoint at the same spot is even better)
Who'd want to steal from that cesspool anyway? Same for reddit, I can't imagine getting reddit memes spit at me from ChatGPT. But yeah, I bet both of them are being used quite liberally.
I'm a huge fan of theaters. There's a local art theater (non-profit) that had a tier of support that allowed for free tickets to any movie. The price was $1500/yr, and you could write off a fair amount of that as a charitable donation on your taxes. I loved going, and would easily go multiple times a week, sometimes everyday for a whole week.
Sadly, I moved away from that town, and instead bought a 98" 4k TV. It cost about the same ($1500), and now I can't imagine going back to a theater. This size of TV gives me that same theater experience at home where I can see small details in movies that are hard to see normally on smaller TVs. My sound system isn't as great, good stereo pair, but I could easily improve that for another $1500.
Plus, those costs are generally one time costs, and this setup will likely last me at least 5 years if not 10. Going to a theater just doesn't make sense anymore.
"Musk, who has been engaged in a high-profile feud with US President Donald Trump, on Thursday threatened to decommission the Dragon before later saying the spacecraft would stay in operation."
That was their excuse. But they probably knew it already upfront, and of course Trump himself has done so and obviously knows that rich people donate to both parties just to cover their bases and that it means relatively little.
I think it's more likely that Jared was pulled at the suggestion of some staffers that never liked him or Musk in the first place but weren't able to get their way with Trump as long as Musk was still around.
Nah thats bait and the simple answer. Nothing to do with musk it was all known before the relations. Space was not ready for Jared and it denied him. Wonder why? Well if you do a little digging you will see he has some really bad news about him. Like no person on Earth would want to work with him when they listen to what comes out of his mouth. I wonder if there are recordings of him there sure is a book of his actions.
Basically they pulled a fast one on Musk, who believed that with his giant (300$ million give or take) donation would be able to get his preferred candidate to NASA.
The fact that he was quite competent and generally liked doesn’t matter to Trump, who seems set on defunding NASA and having someone there who won’t complain.
NASA making their own rockets/spacecraft certainly wouldn't make the government leaner. NASA was always using contractors, but usually NASA was taking a bigger part in the development/operation of rockets/spacecraft. For human spaceflight, that changed with the Commercial Crew Program, with the contracts for the development of the crewed spacecraft that would be designed, produced and operated entirely by commercial companies. SpaceX received $2.6 billion for the development of Dragon, Boeing received $4.2 billion for Starliner. So SpaceX was the cheaper option, and they started operational crewed missions to ISS in 2020. Boeing got much more money, and in 2025 they still don't have an operational spacecraft.
Commercial Crew Program (and also commercial resupply flights to the ISS) started during Obama presidency, so we can thank Obama for commercializing space and making NASA leaner and saving taxpayer dollars.
That was a pretty dumb tweet as it gives Trump all the ammo to put SpaceX under close government scrutiny and/or make plans to nationalize it, or whatever whimsical thing he can think of to hurt Musk.
It's kind of crazy how he can get away with increasing taxes, increasing debt, cronyism, price controls, demolish law and order and convince his base he's doing the opposite. I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled off forced nationalization of industry.
And the classic accelerometer installed backward which doomed the Genesis mission sample return, although some bits were successfully recovered, the parachute never deployed.
It'd be hard to figure out. A lot of hedge funds run on mark-to-market accounting, which basically taxes the unrealized gains as gains every year, as opposed to keeping track of the cost basis when bought and taxed upon selling. There are quarterly reports made to the SEC though for firms of a certain size, or holding a certain percentage of one stock, typically 10% of a company involves additional paperwork and regulation.
Also, there's many times where the cost basis is stepped up, for example when someone dies and passes on assets to their beneficiaries. In this case the cost basis changes from what the dead person paid for it to what the beneficiary gets it for upon inheriting it.
Overall, I don't think this is a useful measure of anything though. What you might be interested in is the volume weighted average price, which gives an idea on how much people have paid on a stock in a recent window, based on the volume of trades and the price of those trades, reflecting what the average buyer's cost basis could be around.
Even that isn't really true, since you don't pay taxes on Roth IRAs, and a normal IRA is taxed based on the total amount distributed (since you didn't pay taxes on the amount put in), rather than cost basis.
It's pretty complicated, look up the Secure Act 2.0 for some of the recent changes to try to get more taxes out of retirement accounts.
