Skip to main content

UK.gov's nuclear strategy is 'slow, inefficient, and costly'

2 months 3 weeks ago
Taskforce delivers damning interim report on next generation of energy generation

An independent taskforce commissioned by the UK government has warned of the nation's "unnecessarily slow, inefficient, and costly" approach to nuclear power (and weaponry).…

Gareth Halfacree

Amazon's Starlink Competitor Tops 100 Satellites

2 months 3 weeks ago
After four weather-related delays, Amazon successfully launched 24 more Kuiper internet satellites aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9, bringing its total to 102. CNBC reports: SpaceX's Starlink is currently the dominant provider of low-earth orbit satellite internet, with a constellation of roughly 8,000 satellites and about 5 million customers worldwide. Amazon is racing to get more of its Kuiper satellites into space to meet a deadline set by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC requires that Amazon have about 1,600 satellites in orbit by the end of July 2026, with the full 3,236-satellite constellation launched by July 2029. Amazon has booked up to 83 launches, including three rides with SpaceX. While the company is still in the early stages of building out its constellation, Amazon has already inked deals with governments as it hopes to begin commercial service later this year.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

BeauHD

CodeSOD: Round Strips

2 months 3 weeks ago

JavaScript is frequently surprising in terms of what functions it does not support. For example, while it has a Math.round function, that only rounds to the nearest integer, not an arbitrary precision. That's no big deal, of course, as if you wanted to round to, say, four decimal places, you could write something like: Math.floor(n * 10000) / 10000.

But in the absence of a built-in function to handle that means that many developers choose to reinvent the wheel. Ryan found this one.

function stripExtraNumbers(num) { //check if the number's already okay //assume a whole number is valid var n2 = num.toString(); if(n2.indexOf(".") == -1) { return num; } //if it has numbers after the decimal point, //limit the number of digits after the decimal point to 4 //we use parseFloat if strings are passed into the method if(typeof num == "string"){ num = parseFloat(num).toFixed(4); } else { num = num.toFixed(4); } //strip any extra zeros return parseFloat(num.toString().replace(/0*$/,"")); }

We start by turning the number into a string and checking for a decimal point. If it doesn't have one, we've already rounded off, return the input. Now, we don't trust our input, so if the input was already a string, we'll parse it into a number. Once we know it's a number, we can call toFixed, which returns a string rounded off to the correct number of decimal points.

This is all very dumb. Just dumb. But it's the last line which gets really dumb.

toFixed returns a padded string, e.g. (10).toFixed(4) returns "10.0000". But this function doesn't want those trailing zeros, so they convert our string num into a string, then use a regex to replace all of the trailing zeros, and then parse it back into a float.

Which, of course, when storing the number as a number, we don't really care about trailing zeros. That's a formatting choice when we output it.

I'm always impressed by a code sample where every single line is wrong. It's like a little treat. In this case, it even gets me a sense of how it evolved from little snippets of misunderstood code. The regex to remove trailing zeros in some other place in this developer's experience led to degenerate cases where they had output like 10., so they also knew they needed to have the check at the top to see if the input had a fractional part. Which the only way they knew to do that was by looking for a . in a string (have fun internationalizing that!). They also clearly don't have a good grasp on types, so it makes sense that they have the extra string check, just to be on the safe side (though it's worth noting that parseFloat is perfectly happy to run on a value that's already a float).

This all could be a one-liner, or maybe two if you really need to verify your types. Yet here we are, with a delightfully wrong way to do everything.

.comment { border: none; } [Advertisement] Keep the plebs out of prod. Restrict NuGet feed privileges with ProGet. Learn more.
Remy Porter