averell

This discussion is already dead, but for posterity: The real motivation was actually a performance improvement, as can be seen at https://github.com/golang/go/commit/55c458e05f35d0d5d539107d...

I don't think that is true anymore:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potenti...

And Wiley / ProjectDEAL just yesterday reached a breakthrough: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/groundbreaking-deal-m...

Suprisingly little coverage, but things aren't looking great for Elsevier.

I just don't think it's likely that the real reason most software is crappy, is because nobody thought of extending unit test coverage yet. Selling tools here is not "the other way", it's the same problem.

What if the problem is bad management? Or low experience/expertise in general? All of these methods and tools are only optimizing locally, and cannot help the root causes.

It's hard to build your consultant image by telling people that multiple methods and tools might work. It's easier to market a simple cure.

Also, the point to "stop making shitty software" is not the same as "stop making mistakes". You can ship high quality software even while being human, it's just slower and more costly.

And while I agree with the article in general, I do believe the current balance has shifted towards too fast iteration and shoddy quality. Just look at the recent iOS/OSX releases. But even that might make business sense, because of the even shittier alternatives.

It's just numbers of letters in the alphabet, e.g. 0615180523151804 == "foreword"

They certainly are going above and beyond. It's basically impossible to find a good VPN that works with Netflix, and they also block pretty much every IP range where you can get a VPS. They are just much more effective than any other geoblock I'm aware of.

I think in this case they have worse odds though, Freedom or Lucky Patcher or some Xposed module will be up to the task if there is enough interest.

No, the article states the method will correctly remove the mentioned whitespace characters even from UTF-8 text, because they are part of the 7 bit subset this method works on.

That is very much possible in many cases. Zero cost abstractions exist: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/05/11/traits.html

Actually they just killed that program, and you won't be able to log via certificates starting early next year.

Not a lot of mention of AI for CS, even in 2002. What about (2080+, P/=NP, proof techniques completely opaque to humans). And by that I don't mean mechanical exclusion of special cases like for map-coloring. As mentioned already, there's like a handful of people that understand the FLT proof, that situation is unlikely to improve.

>The people yelling at you are trying desperately to pretend like it was easy so they don’t feel like an idiot for how long it took them to figure things out. This in turn makes you feel like an idiot for taking so long to grasp the “easy” concept, so you happily pay it forward, and we come to one of the two great Emperor Has No Clothes moments in computing.

This part doesn't make any sense. If anything, people would want to convince you it was hard to not look stupid for taking long.

That being said the phenomenon clearly exists, but the reason is probably more along the lines of calling everything easy to try look smart in general.

Not yet - gcc (GCC) 4.9.2 20150204 (prerelease) But the article reasoning of having to stick it out for a long time doesn't apply anyway when you have a rolling release.

If that would disqualify then so would feeling good about it without telling people, it's the same kind of compensation. And he could even tell people the same thing without really donating, so the act itself is actually altruistic after all.