Here is the part of the test.c source from V7 Unix:
main(argc, argv)
char *argv[];
{
ac = argc; av = argv; ap = 1;
if(EQ(argv[0],"[")) {
if(!EQ(argv[--ac],"]"))
synbad("] missing","");
}
argv[ac] = 0;
if (ac<=1) exit(1);
exit(exp()?0:1);
}
So, if the professor was missing the "[" command, they were missing a link. More likely, they had a weird orthodoxy about using "test" instead of "[" because reasons. One good reason to use "test" instead of "[" in a Bourne shell control statement is if you are running a list of commands between "if" and "then", and the test is the last part of the list.
Another good place to use "test" is if you are not in a control statement and you are just setting $?.
I had a friend who started the game saying, "The game of Mao is like the game of life. You come into it not knowing the rules but you get penalized for them anyway." I always liked that opening, more than "The only rule you may be told is this one."
Dec 7, 2025 (A day that will live in infamy?) Linked from TFA:
> > > one word: repositories view
> > what do you mean?
> It's possible, and the solution is so silly that I laughed when I finally figured it out. I'm not sure if I should just post it plainly here since Anthropic might block it which would affect opencode as well, but here's a hint. After you exhaust every option and you're sure the requests you're sending are identical to CC's, check the one thing that probably still isn't identical yet (hint: it comes AFTER the headers).
When I was a software developer, I mostly griped about this when I wanted to experiment to see if I would even ask my larger enterprise if they would be interested in looking into it. I always felt like companies were killing a useful marketing stream from the enterprise's own employees. I think Tailscale has really nailed it, though. They give away the store to casual users, but make it so that a business will want to talk to sales to get all the features they need with better pricing per user. Small businesses can survive quite well on the free plan.
This is why so many early computing machines' names ended in "AC" for Automatic Calculaor or Automatic Computer. EDVAC, EDSAC, UNIVAC, though not ENIAC.
That was a sensible chuckle indeed... but then it also made me realize that grabbing things IRL _moves_ them, not _resizes_ them. Nothing IRL really resizes.
So while it makes a lot of sense to grab inside the object to move it, IMO it actually makes less sense to grab _inside_ the object to resize it. (Imagine the reverse argument -- IRL you can actually grab the middle of the plate to move it, but if grabbing the middle of the window resized it, that would also be very bad.)
I've been trained to grab the edge to resize windows. So I wouldn't try to reach so far inside the rounded rectangle as OP, although it doesn't invalidate their entire argument.
If you want to increase the size of saran wrap or aluminum foil, you grab the edge and pull. Same for increasing the size of toilet paper before tearing it off.
When you want to stretch your fitted sheet onto your mattress, you grab the corner and pull to stretch it over.
When you want to make your pizza dough larger, you toss it above your head in a circle, so I guess that one doesn't really match the macOS gesture, I guess you should be spinning windows to make them bigger.
However, when you're doing other baking things, like placing fondant or a pie crust, you do stretch from the edges some.
> When you want to make your pizza dough larger, you toss it above your head in a circle, so I guess that one doesn't really match the macOS gesture, I guess you should be spinning windows to make them bigger.
> IRL you can actually grab the middle of the plate to move it
Really wouldn't recommend it though, all sorts of consequences for the food (if present), your hand, the hygiene of the plate and potential damage to underlying surfaces. Generally preferable to pick it up and put it down again.
Everybody has a big ego when it comes to their own sense of humor, till they create an account on hackernews and get told they should stop being funny. I hope the other guy gets it
I spent a while in the couchsurfing community. It was probably about as safe for women as having a job or being in a university. Now, I recognize that CS was more specific than seeking random acts of kindness on the daily, but a big part of what makes it work is that the vast majority of men aren't looking to assault women and will not stand for it, either.
I met a woman once, who was working as a waitress. She said she was a hobo before this job, but she had a daughter, and while she longs for the hobo life, she knows it's not right for a young kid.
Again, bad things happen, I am sure there are stories. If you expect to find a situation for women where there is no risk, best of luck to you.
So, 1926? My feeling is: probably, from some white people. And, these areas had non-white people. The GP said Midwest, so we can think of the region roughly from Indiana to Nebraska, and North to the border. While there were "sundown towns" in those areas, where racists banded together to keep black people out of the town after dark, there were also people outside those towns with diverse beliefs and attitudes towards black people. In that region, the harshest laws regarding race were probably in Missouri. In any event, a black man was probably at greater risk than a white man of suffering an attack by a stranger, but I would expect there also would be people of all races willing to extend hospitality.
Another good place to use "test" is if you are not in a control statement and you are just setting $?.
Edit: EQ() is defined as:
reply