aassddffasdf

Property-based tests do this at runtime too (and they catch far more bugs than you'd imagine going into it).

This is easy peasy elementary stuff my friends: two wrongs don't make a right.

And, yes, I personally do speak out when CEOs and such take credit. [The Google Android project head is one example from recent memory].

The problem is with the article "the". She's one of many people behind the first black hole image.

I'm surprised this is still something people talk about. I have been using generated inline CSS for several years now.

"The amount of things you have to know in C++ is arguably a bit larger."

Arguably, lol.

No shit. That's what I said. Boilerplate in any language is "doing it wrong".

> walking into a new Forth application is potentially like walking into a new language

This is how walking into an application in any language (but yes especially Forth and Lisp(s)) is supposed to be but most are doing it wrong by repeating a lot of boilerplate.

So $150,000 is enough runway for what: 0.6 man-years? Sounds legit.

Hey, somebody should build a beowulf cluster of Raspberry PIs running patchfoo and offer some sort of cloud/SaaS for everyone else.

Also, there is no kernel but the unikernel itself in such systems. So no idea what you mean by again here.

That's not the point. It's both ASLR and ACLR. ASLR is not enough for certain vulnerabilities when the attackers know which bits/content are present.

It's more secure due to automatic address space layout randomization. In fact, it's both space layout and space content randomization-- each application/kernel is unique.

I do have the really secret stuff on BitBucket. :)

It's like putting something on the blockchain-- I want it there so that I can point to it from the future as "my work" but without attracting too much attention in the meantime.

If the attention comes, no worry. If it doesn't, perfect.

I agree that your interpretation has a lot of weight. However, you're forgetting a couple of things:

-. could be a request from the VP's peer; i.e., another VP. Or from someone in a lateral org (such as HR).

-. the manager himself in your interpretation of events should have the power at least to fire (if not to promote).

The fact is: it was a very confusingly worded post and we've probably wasted more time on it than it warrants. :)

I honestly think you're misreading. My reading (consistent with the one you replied to) is:

a higher-level manager somewhat arbitrarily comes out of the blue and wants to fire one of your team. You have no paperwork to back the idea that the request is misplaced/misguided.

I intentionally leave some of my projects in a super-raw state as a way to obfuscate their true intended purpose; utilizing a public [but obscured] repo as a quasi-private one. :)

I realize not everyone feels this way, but I do.

I think the more likely scenario is that:

a) the company is growing by leaps and bounds and would rather promote internally X% of existing employees. --or- b) the company is facing a downturn and would like to get rid of X% of existing employees.

In neither case does it have much to do with the actual people falling into or out of that X% (unless a perfectly just system is in place [and it isn't]).

That is not what is meant by "idioms and stylistic aspects". Take, e.g. `o.map(v => ...).getOrElse(v2)` vs `o match case Some(v) => ... case None => v2`. The former is idiomatic and preferred over the latter (but of course some jackass somewhere will disagree and argue incessantly about it).

The frequency which this distinction is made in the general populace matters not in the least to me. What matters to me is reality/truth. Either people get on board with it or they butcher it. I have a bit more faith in them than you do it seems. Only time will tell which of us is correct.

That's not correct. What you've described is Bucklescript (which has OCaml syntax). ReasonML is an attempt to "improve" the OCaml syntax to something more familiar to folks coming from C-style family of lanauges. ReasonML can be used with both the Bucklescript compiler (which compiles to JS) -or- the standard OCaml one (which compiles to native).

Perhaps a company would allow it because the labor market coordinated amongst itself and demanded it? But alas you're correct capital can fuck labor over and over again with no recourse in the current climate.

I think you have that backwards. Bottom up is about the composition of already understood pieces into more powerful ones (the utility of which is obvious due to solving limitations/ inconveniences inherent in the previous layer).

No, people claimed that Java was a functional language, prior to actually getting lambdas & all that comes with them, due to [anonymous] inner classes.

Does it matter who runs them? Are the various subsidiaries of abc now not to ever be associated with 'Google'? That's naive and shortsighted.

You do realize that Stack Overflow and Twilio are Fog Creek products yea?