Ma8ee

If you use that much time for donkey work, you are using the wrong tools. If it is so simple so that can delegate it to a LLM, you need to use a language with more expressive power.

We struggle to predict the weather, not the climate.

No, it will not be correctly priced. It will reach some kind of local optimum not taking any externalities into account.

Your link actually supports the comment you replied to.

The only reason they wouldn't sell a drawer with a box joint today is because they wouldn't be able make the box flat enough. They certainly use even more complex joints even today.

The two last companies I worked for have switched from Slack to Teams. I just assumed that they had some package deal for Microsoft Office that included Teams anyway.

These have been quite big developer heavy companies. If companies like these don't think they can motivate the cost for Slack, I wonder if there are any than can.

I just calculated that I’m about 6.24 nanolightseconds. A nanolightsecond is just over a foot, so at least Americans should easily get use to the unit.

Waterfall certainly has processes for going back and adjusting previous steps after learning things later in the process. The design was updated if something didn’t work out during implementation, and of course implementation was changed after errors was found during testing.

Now that agile practitioners have learned that requirements and upfront design actually is helpful, the only difference seems to be that the loops are tighter. That might not have been possible earlier without proper version control, without automated tests, and the software being delivered on solid media. A tight feedback loop is harder when someone has to travel to your customer and sit down at their machines to do any updates.

We used to call that Waterfall, and it has been frowned upon for a while now.

So we went full circle, again.

I guess that's why American kids never eat junk food or drink soda instead of water. I'm sure the 35% of the US population that are obese will get tired of eating badly any day now.

Children are naturally interested in sweets! You don't need to make them forbidden for that. And just you are allowed to eat sweets only one day of the week doesn't mean that they are allowed to unlimited amounts of it, and, in my experience, interested to overeat it.

Why would it foster an unhealthy relationship with food to learn that some things are unhealthy and eaten only at special occasions? An unhealthy relationship with food would rather be to think that you can eat sweets whenever you feel for it.

Not at all. My wife and I, living in Sweden, are practicing it today with our kids (5 and 8 years old), and my impression is that most families around us do the same.

Energy drinks, vapes and snus might be popular among teenagers, but has there ever been a time when you have been able to control what teenagers do to any higher degree.

A bit of longtermism wouldn’t be so bad. We could sacrifice the convenience of burning fossil fuels today for our descendants to have an inhabitable planet.

While I can't say I'm completely calm about the situation in Europe, it is very different from the onset of any of the two world wars. Europe is mostly united against the external enemy Russia, and the few countries that aren't 100% on the train is too small to really make any difference.

I'm pointing out that there is an implied assumption that private always is better than public, and that assumption in many cases is just plain wrong. Not in all cases, market economy works great for many things, but there are also many cases it plainly sucks. When you warn that private initiatives might be crowded out, it is implicit that those are more desirable than public initiatives.

This kind of discussion is a bit off topic here, but I think it is important to remind people that the idea that private always is better than public is ideological dogma, not science. But your latest comment makes me believe you agree with that.

That whole discussion is based on the assumption that commercial firms or nonprofits are better in some way than publicly funded research. That is the stupid neoliberal dogma that private and market economy always are better than things that are run by our elected officials. That dogma has to die.

And most Japanese websites.

> because the philosophy itself is based on the emotionally satisfying but ultimately unscientific “Gaia” theory of “balance” and “self-sustaining” / “self-correcting” systems.

I’m certain some have used those ideas, but that is not what the philosophy itself is based on.

The capitalist system is broken. Incentives to maximise stockholder values will maximise stockholder values very well. Everything else will go to shit. This is true about everything from user experience to the environment to democracy.

We can determine the productivity of factory workers, and that is still(!) how we are seen by some managers.

And to be fair, some crud work is repetitive enough so it should be possible to get a fair measure of at least the difference in speed between developers.

But that building simple crud services with rest interfaces takes as much time as it does is a failure of the tools we use.

But the reason we read code is to be able to change it or extend it. If we don’t need to change it extend it, the need to read it disappears too.

Why would you need to observe anything in isolation for it to be a physical property? This is the proposition that I find absurd. It’s like saying that a hydrogen atom isn’t really a hydrogen atom, but just an arbitrary set of nucleons.

The existence of a rock is definitely a physical property, and thus is the number of rocks in a collection a physical property, at least as much as temperature is it for a gas.

With the same line of reasoning you can argue (and some have) that numbers aren’t fundamental and are only made up by humans. In my view, the number of swans in the pond is three whether humans exist or not.

Entropy is certainly a physical “thing”, in the sense that it affects the development of the system. You can equally well apply your argument that it isn’t a physical thing because it doesn’t exist on a microscopic scale to temperature. Temperature doesn’t exist when you zoom in on single particles either.

There’s no reason to involve our knowledge of the system. Entropy is a measure of the number of possible micro states for a given system, and that number exists independently of us.

I didn’t ditch a “free” product. I ditched a product that I paid with my attention and time, which is something of the most valuable I have.

> And because of the deployment strategy, you can't easily test that combination in isolation. Also no tests for each service, only full integration tests that takes a while to run.

That doesn't sound like microservices at all, but a distributed monolith.

I'm so sorry!

And companies value it because it signals that the holder of that paper can do the work and isn’t completely stupid.

What do you use instead?