• Commiseratus (unregistered)

    You see - once you are forced by fate to accept weekly payments, you even lose the rebate, which is even worse.

  • a robot (unregistered)

    re: factorial 2020 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/170_(number)

  • Anonymous') OR 1=1; DROP TABLE wtf; -- (unregistered)

    If it can't be stored in a 64-bit double value, it doesn't exist. Just like how nothing existed before January 1, 1970.

  • (nodebb)

    At least we now know that the Apple Watch Series 6 is going to be discontinued by the end of June 2021.

  • Re: Cancel the Cancel (unregistered)

    Not a set-up. We had exactly the same issue at my previous job.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Anonymous') OR 1=1; DROP TABLE wtf; --

    And according to https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/discretemathematics/factorials.php , 2020 factorial is 3.860969518e+5801 which is way far north of what fits in even an 80-bit IEEE floating point variable.

  • technically... (unregistered) in reply to a robot

    Updated the wiki to limit that claim to IEEE 754. Technically, the 2020 factorial value given by StC below fits in even 32-bits (non-IEEE 754 scheme) with decent accuracy (approx 2.5e-8), with 13 bits required for the exponent, 1 sign and the rest for the mantissa. Of course, you'd have to write your own floating point procedures to use the different bit setup, but it would fit.

  • Loren Pechtel (unregistered)

    What's so terrible about the calculator one? It's undefined within the number space most programs work with.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Loren Pechtel

    What's so terrible about the calculator one? It's undefined within the number space most programs work with.

    I think Google can afford to use BigNums for math requests.

  • (nodebb)

    Horolophile

    Horophile, Shirley?

  • Matt (unregistered)

    DuckDuckGo disagrees with Google

    2020! = Infinity

    WolframAlpha tells the truth though

  • (author) in reply to PJH

    Roger. I neologed real hard on that one, but time will tell.

  • xtal256 (unregistered)

    The Jira one isn't really a WTF, they just configured it that way. It would be like naming a file "folder.txt" and naming a folder "file" then laughing when your app asks "Save folder to file?".

  • löchleindeluxe (unregistered) in reply to Matt

    Well 2020 isn't infinity, so…

  • (nodebb) in reply to technically...

    Technically, the 2020 factorial value given by StC below fits in even 32-bits (non-IEEE 754 scheme) with decent accuracy (approx 2.5e-8), with 13 bits required for the exponent,

    Stop right there. That e+5801 is a decimal exponent, and it is roughly equivalent to two to the 19300, which requires 18 bits of exponent if you want to have a way to express negative exponents. (No, it's not exactly 19300, but it's definitely well north of 16383.)

  • RLB (unregistered) in reply to Loren Pechtel

    What's so terrible about the calculator one? It's undefined within the number space most programs work with.

    No, it's an overflow. Not quite the same thing. And that (or something more non-programmer-friendly) should've been Google's answer.

  • DanK (unregistered) in reply to xtal256

    The WTF is that someone configured it that way.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Loren Pechtel

    What's so terrible about the calculator one? It's undefined within the number space most programs work with

    2020/0 is undefined. 2020! is just too big for Google's calculator to work out. There's a huge difference between not being a coherent concept and just being too big.

  • Jaqueline (unregistered)

    The Jira thing happened to my project too omg hahaha

  • 516052 (unregistered)

    Jira is a Chinese communist plant created to sabotage western companies and collapse our economy so that we become dependant on outsourced Chinese developers. If you need proof (other than how well it works) just google up any of their propaganda music. They all keep singing "Jira! Jira! Jira!"

    SAP meanwhile is German revenge for WW2.

  • markm (unregistered) in reply to dkf

    That was my first thought - you aren't going to be able to buy it after June 2021. But it's more likely that either

    1. Management jotted down an example screen, and an educated-beyond-his-intelligence coder didn't realize that the dates should change according to the date the user called up this screen. The specs weren't clear, but they never are. You need to think about the specs and ask the people requesting the code about anything that is unclear.

    2. The specs did call for displaying 3 months up to the current month. but it was coded with an off-by-one error. Automated testing didn't detect the error, either because with the dates displayed changing according to when the test was run it only checked the dates format, or because it duplicated the error in the date formula to derive the dates to compare. (I also wonder what the chances are that a manual tester would miss this.)

Leave a comment on “l'Audace”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #527192:

« Return to Article